Council Resolutions

Last Updated: 28 July 2015

2015

March | April | June | July

2014

January | March | May | June | September | October | November

2013

January | May | June | July | August | October | November | December

2012

January | February | March | April | June | September | October | November | December

2011

January | February | March | April | June | July | September | October | December

2010

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | December

2009

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

2008

January | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

2007

January | February | March | April | May | June | August | September | October | November | December

2006

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | September | October | November | December

2005

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

20150723-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

  1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of very ICANN meeting.
  2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
  3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
  4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué by a small number of volunteers and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
  5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicates the GNSO Review of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
  2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

20150624-1

Extension of the term of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Whereas:

  1. As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC was proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore and implemented as a one-year pilot program in FY15 on the recommendation of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group.
  2. The GAC and GNSO Council agreed that additional time was needed to fully evaluate this pilot program and as such requested, and received, support for continuing the pilot program in FY16.
  3. Mason Cole has been fulfilling the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC and has indicated that he is willing to continue in this role for FY16.
  4. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY16, by both the GNSO Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby extends the term of Mason Cole to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2016.
  2. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on the continued implementation of this role.

20150624-2

Adoption of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas:

  1. On 17 July 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter for a GNSO non-PDP Policy and Implementation Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201307) tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on:
    1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures.
    2. A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of "Policy Guidance", including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process.
    3. A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations.
    4. Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation.
    5. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
  2. The GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group published its Initial Recommendations Report for public comment on 19 January 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en).
  3. The GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group reviewed the input received (see public comment review tool) and updated the report accordingly.
  4. The Final Recommendations Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf), which contains a number of recommendations that will require changes to the ICANN Bylaws, has obtained the full consensus support of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group. The Final Recommendations Report was submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 2 June 2015.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Input Process as outlined in Annex C of the Final Recommendations Report and instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.
  2. The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the new GNSO Processes as reflected in the Annexes D and E for the GNSO Guidance Process and Annexes F and G for the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process as outlined in the Policy & Implementation Final Recommendations Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf).
  3. The GNSO Council recommends that the GNSO Guidance Process and GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process shall be available for use by the GNSO Council following adoption of any necessary changes to the ICANN Bylaws by the ICANN Board. The GNSO Input Process, which does not require any Bylaw changes, will be available for use upon adoption by the GNSO Council.
  4. The GNSO Council adopts the recommendation to add a provision to the GNSO Operating Procedures that clarifies that parallel efforts on similar/identical topics should be avoided as outlined in recommendation #3 of the Final Recommendations Report. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures immediately upon adoption by the ICANN Board of the GNSO Guidance Process and GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process per resolved clause 3.
  5. The GNSO Council adopts the 'Policy & Implementation Principles / Requirements' as outlined in section 4 of the Final Recommendations Report and recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors also (a) adopts these principles / requirements and (b) instructs ICANN staff to follow these accordingly to help guide any future GNSO policy and implementation related work.
  6. The GNSO Council adopts recommendation #4 of the Final Recommendations Report to modify the PDP Manual to require the creation of an Implementation Review Team following the adoption of the PDP recommendations by the ICANN Board, and instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures immediately upon adoption.
  7. The GNSO Council adopts the 'Implementation Review Team Principles & Guidelines' as outlined in Annex L of the Final Recommendations Report and recommends that (a) the ICANN Board of Directors also adopts these principles & guidelines and (b) instructs ICANN staff to follow these accordingly to guide GNSO policy related implementation efforts.
  8. The GNSO Council thanks the Policy & Implementation Working Group for its efforts and recommends that the working group is formally closed upon adoption by the ICANN Board of these recommendations while still allowing the working group to provide input to the GNSO Council and implementation staff should any questions or issues arise before or after that time.
  9. The GNSO Council recommends that a review of these recommendations is carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed.

20150624-3

Adoption of the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas

  1. On 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information [http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201306] addressing the following two Charter questions:
    1. Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
    2. Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script.
  2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 12 June 2015;
  3. The Translation and Transliteration PDP has reached consensus on one recommendation and full consensus on the six remaining recommendations in relation to the two issues outlined above;
  4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the recommendations (#1 through #7) as detailed in the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Final Report.
  2. On 21 June, the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group Working Group notified the Council of a clerical error in the text of Recommendation #4 of the Final Report, which has been edited as follows: "The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant Consensus Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are [verified] validated, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable." The Recommendation with the corrected text has reached full consensus in the Working Group because the correction is needed to reflect the substance of Working Group's deliberations documented in the Final Report. The corrected Final Report has been posted to the GNSO Council and posted to the GNSO Website: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/transliteration-contact
  3. The GNSO Council shall convene a Translation and Transliteration of Contact information Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policies. If the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new policy recommendations, the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Implementation Review Team to the members of Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group.

20150624-4

Request for a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds

Whereas,

  1. In 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process; and,
  2. In September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of Directors; and,
  3. The Final Report stated that " This policy development process has been designed to produce a systemised and ongoing mechanism for applicants to propose new top-level domains."
  4. In June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and
  5. In June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,
  6. In June 2012, the first round application submission period closed; and,
  7. In June 2014, this Council created the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) to discuss experiences gained and lessons learned from the 2012 New gTLD round and identify subjects for future issue reports, that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent procedures; and,
  8. In August 2014, the DG began deliberations, focusing primarily on the identification of issues that members experienced in the 2012 New gTLD round; and,
  9. In November 2014, the ICANN Board provided initial input on areas for possible policy work in Annex A related to a resolution on Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds.
  10. The DG developed a matrix which attempts to associate identified issues with a corresponding principle, policy recommendation or implementation guidance from the 2007 Final Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains, or to note that the issue may warrant new policy work. Furthermore, the DG developed a draft PDP WG charter that identifies subjects, divided into provisional groupings, for further analysis in a potential Issue Report and potential PDP; and,
  11. The DG recommends that its set of deliverables serve as the basis for analysis in a single Issue Report.

Now therefore, it is resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council requests a single Issue Report that will analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures. The Preliminary Issue Report should at a minimum consider:
    • The subjects that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group identified in its deliverables (i.e., issues matrix and draft charter);
    • Global Domains Division Staff input to the deliberations of the DG, and;
    • The ICANN Board Resolution Annex A regarding Initial Input on Areas for Possible Policy work.

20150624-5

Adopted the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship)

Whereas;

  1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management.
  2. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions."
  3. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related to the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components.
  4. The GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and ALAC chartered a Cross Community Working Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.
  5. On 1 December 2014, the CWG-Stewardship published its first draft proposal for public comment. The CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments, then received and updated its proposal accordingly, resulting in a second Draft Proposal which was published for public comment on 22 April 2015.
  6. After closure of the public comment period on the second draft proposal, the CWG-Stewardship reviewed all comments received, and, where appropriate, prepared responses to the comments received and took the input as input for the deliberations to finalize the proposals (see https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw).
  7. Based on the second proposal and further discussion by the full CWG-Stewardship and Design Teams, taking into account the public comment analysis, the Final Proposal was developed and submitted to the chartering organizations for consideration on 11 June 2015.
  8. As noted in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this Final Proposal will require revision.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and its submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group.
  2. The GNSO Council approval is provided on the basis that the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal is conditional on the ICANN-level accountability mechanisms (Work Stream 1) being developed by the CCWG-Accountability and moreover that:
    1. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the GNSO Council and;
    2. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the ICANN Board and;
    3. All required bylaws amendments will need to be adopted before the transition and;
    4. All other required implementation will need to be completed before the transition or, if not implemented beforehand, that there will be irrevocable commitments of such implementation to be complete within a reasonable time period after the transition, not to exceed one year.
  3. Following the submission of the Final Report of the CCWG-Accountability on Work Stream 1 and subsequent GNSO Council consideration, the GNSO Council will communicate the results of its deliberations on the CCWG-Accountability Final Proposal on Work Stream 1; including to the ICG, ICANN Board and NTIA, as necessary, and thereby confirm whether or not the conditionality requirements as set out in the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal have been met from a GNSO perspective.
  4. In the event that the CCWG-Accountability mechanisms fail to meet the conditions in the CWG Stewardship Final Report, the GNSO Council must formally reconsider any material revisions to the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that may be made as a result of such failure by the CCWG Accountability to meet the stated conditionality.
  5. The GNSO Council thanks the CWG-Stewardship for all its hard work and recommends that the CWG-Stewardship is only formally closed upon submission by the ICANN Board of the final transition proposal to the NTIA, thus allowing the CWG-Stewardship to provide input to the ICG and/or GNSO Council should any questions or issues arise before that time.

20150416-1

Consent Agenda

  1. Adoption of the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review Request Concerning Seconding and Amendments

 

WHEREAS:

  1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    1. Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:
      • whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and
      • Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly".
    2. These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to operating procedural rules.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).
  2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
  3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs).

20150416-2

Consent Agenda

  1. Adoption of the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review Request Concerning Overlap of Waiver and Resubmission

 

WHEREAS:

  1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    1. The latest version of the Procedures incorporates approved new procedures recommended by the SCI relating to the Council's ability to:
      • waive the general rule of a 10-day deadline for the submission of motions for voting (Section 3.3.2), and
      • permit a motion that has been voted on but not adopted to be resubmitted for reconsideration (Section 4.3.3).
  2. The Council's original request that the SCI consider these two situations did not explicitly ask that the SCI consider also the possible interplay between them (e.g. if a resubmitted motion is sent to the Council after the 10-day deadline applicable to the next scheduled Council meeting).
  3. Although the SCI discussed this issue, it did not reach consensus on whether and how to address the potential problem.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council requests the SCI to consider whether or not there is a need to include a further rule (possibly as an additional paragraph under the new Section 3.3.2) that specifically addresses the possible interplay between the new rules applicable to waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of a motion.

20150416-3

Amendment to the charter for the IGO-INGO access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group.

WHEREAS:

  1. On 5 June 2014 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) to explore whether amendments to existing curative rights mechanisms (such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure) or the creation of a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution mechanism will be necessary to address the needs of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in protecting their names and acronyms at the second level in generic top-level domains (gTLD);
  2. On 25 June 2014 the GNSO Council chartered the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group to begin work on the PDP;
  3. The Charter for the Working Group contemplates that in relation to IGOs the Working Group is to use the IGO List provided to ICANN by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in March 2013, which is based on the eligibility criteria for an IGO to register a domain name in the .int gTLD, and which was the basis upon which the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs made their consensus recommendations in November 2013;
  4. After analyzing the historical documents, legal texts and research related to the issue of an IGO's standing to file a complaint under the UDRP and URS, the Working Group has reached a preliminary conclusion that a more appropriate basis for standing under any applicable curative rights dispute resolution process may be the legal protections for IGO names and acronyms that are conferred by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;
  5. This preliminary conclusion is supported by the May 2002 recommendation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee for Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as well as the December 2011 open letter sent to ICANN by legal counsel of twenty-eight IGOs; and
  6. The Working Group has requested that the GNSO Council approve an amendment to the Working Group Charter that will include the flexibility to consider all appropriate eligibility options.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the request from the Working Group to amend its Charter, as follows:

    Where, under "Mission and Scope", the current Charter reads:

    "For purposes of this PDP, the scope of IGO and INGO identifiers is to be limited to those identifiers previously listed by the GNSO's PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as protected by their consensus recommendations (designated by that WG as Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers, and listed in Annex 2 of the Final Issue Report)."

    It is hereby amended to read:

    "For purposes of this PDP, the WG shall take into account any criteria for IGO or INGO protection that may be appropriate, including any that may have been developed previously, such as the list of IGO and INGO identifiers that was used by the GNSO's prior PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as the basis for their consensus recommendations and the GAC list of IGOs as provided to ICANN in March 2013."

20150319-1

Consent agenda

Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires

20150319-2

Motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis

  1. In March 2014 the GNSO and GAC formed a joint consultation group (CG) to explore mechanisms to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes.
  2. As per its charter, the CG's deliberations have focused on two tracks, namely 1) a mechanism for day-to-day ongoing cooperation and 2) a mechanism for GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP
    (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsogcgogeeipdp/3.+Charter).
  3. As part of its deliberations on track 2), the CG put forward a set of preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP which were reviewed and discussed by the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore
    (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf).
  4. The GAC noted in its Communiqué (ICANN52), that 'The GAC met the GNSO and agreed, on a trial basis and subject to ongoing adjustments as necessary, to a mechanism proposed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group for early engagement at the issues scoping phase of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). This includes formation of a GAC Quick-Look Mechanism Committee. The arrangements will allow for an early indication in the PDP of whether the issue has a standing GAC advice and whether it has public policy implications, and hence is of interest to the GAC. It will also enable the GNSO to factor this in and the GAC to prepare input to be provided at the relevant stages of the PDP. This would not limit the GAC's existing ability to give advice to the ICANN Board'.
  5. Based on these discussions and input received, the CG recommends that the GAC and GNSO Council implement these recommendations on a trial basis, in order to assess their effectiveness in facilitating GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP.
  6. In the meantime, the CG will continue its review and deliberations on the other phases of the GNSO PDP, which may result in further proposals of additional recommendations for consideration.

RESOLVED

  1. The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP's immediately following the adoption of the motion.
  2. Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial.

20141113-1

Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Whereas,

  1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management.

  2. During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder statement[1], as the existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as for review and redress.

  3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that itwas expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed.

  4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.

  5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf) and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO co-chair to the CWG.

  2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:

    • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter (see for example https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12 for areas identified for expertise);

    • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and

    • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.

  3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.

[1] http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf

20141113-2

Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures Working Group Guidelines to Address Issues relating to Waiver of Motion Deadlines, GNSO Council Voting Outside a Council Meeting Working Group Consensus Levels

WHEREAS:

  1. The GNSO Council has determined that:

    1. the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on waiving the deadline to submit a motion for voting by the GNSO Council;

    2. the current GNSO Operating Procedures also do not contain a specific provision that permits the Council to vote outside a meeting; and

    3. the language relating to Consensus Levels in the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, may require further clarification.

  2. The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) consider:

    1. whether there should be modifications to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issues of waiving the deadline for submission of a motion and allowing the Council to vote outside a meeting; and

    2. whether the language relating to Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines requires clarification.

  3. The SCI developed language to be inserted in Section 3.3 (Notice of Meetings) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for a waiver of the prescribed deadline for the submission of a new motion for voting by the GNSO Council in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met. This recommendation will not affect the rules regarding the resubmission of a motion approved and added to section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures in March 2014.

  4. In addition, the SCI developed procedures to be added as a new Section 4.10 (Voting Outside A Meeting) to the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the GNSO Council to be able to vote outside a meeting in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met.

  5. The SCI also developed clarifying language in the form of a footnote to be added to the Consensus Levels definitions in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, pending a fuller review of all the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which the SCI also recommends.

  6. The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 17 September 2014 and ending on 08 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2014-09-17-en), as required by the ICANN Bylaws.

  7. As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed.

RESOLVED

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the waiver of deadline for motions submitted for voting by the Council and the ability of the Council to vote outside a meeting – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/motion-waiver-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf and https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/outside-voting-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf respectively;

  2. The GNSO Council adopts the additional footnote language clarifying the Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf

  3. The GNSO Council thanks the SCI for its work on these matters and agrees to consider the SCI's request that the current language concerning Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines be more fully reviewed and revised as part of a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures, including the Working Group Guidelines; and

  4. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures and GNSO Working Group Guidelines, effective immediately upon adoption.

20141015-1

Adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas

  1. On 17 January 2013, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part D [http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 201301] addressing the following six Charter questions:
    1. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
    2. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
    3. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
    4. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
    5. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
    6. Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.
  2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 25 September 2014;
  3. The IRTP Part D WG has reached full consensus on the 18 recommendations in relation to the six issues outlined above;
  4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Now therefore be it resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part D recommendations (#1 to #18) as detailed in the IRTP Part D Final Report [http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-final-25sep14-en.pdf].
  2. The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfils the intentions of the approved policies. If the IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new policy recommendations, the IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part D Working Group.

20141015-2

Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues

Whereas,

  1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
  2. The group has developed the charter found at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
  3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
  2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
    • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter;
    • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
    • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
  3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own rules.
  4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.

20140904-1

Consent agenda:

  1. Council approved thanking ICANN Contractual Compliance for its presentation of their three-year plan and continued collaboration with the GNSO in future policy development efforts

AND

  1. Considering the issues identified in the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report to have been addressed and to consider the issue closed.
  2. The Council confirmed the Co-Chairs for the Working Group on Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs (IGO-INGO-CRP) PDP working group, namely Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth.

20140904-2

Council passed the resolution to appoint a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Whereas:

  1. As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC has been proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore.
  2. As such, the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO policy development activities proposed to implement this option as a one-year pilot program in FY15 (starting 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015).
  3. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY 15, by both the GNSO Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.
  4. Following a call for candidates (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16435.html), five applications were received all of which were evaluated by the GNSO Council Leadership based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.
  5. Mason Cole was unanimously selected by the GNSO Council Leadership as the preferred candidate.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Mason Cole to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2015.
  2. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinatewith Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on next steps and the successful implementation of this new role.

20140904-3

Council adopted a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

Whereas,

  1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management.
  2. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions."
  3. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components.
  4. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, a drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.
  5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, GNSO, SSACC and ALAC

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG.
  2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 September taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
    • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter;
    • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
    • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
  3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for observers to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
  4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG.

20140625-1

Approval of a charter for a PDP working group for IGO and INGO access to Curative Rights and Protection Mechanisms

WHEREAS:

  1. The GNSO Council has resolved (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406) to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to explore possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) so as to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use curative rights protection mechanisms;
  2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf) which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014, and the 24 June 2014 amendments proposed thereto (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf);

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter as amended by the 24 June 2014 proposals and appoints Petter Rindforth as the GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group (WG);
  2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and
  3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

20140625-2

New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds

  1. Whereas, in 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process; and,
  2. Whereas, in September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of Directors; and,
  3. Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and
  4. Whereas, in September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC") in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and,
  5. Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round;" and,
  6. Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,
  7. Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" (Application, Module 2); and,
  8. Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided that "ICANN's goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and
  9. Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; and,
  10. Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first round and proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds;

Now therefore, it is resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council creates a new Discussion Group to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,
  2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,
  3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current progress of (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds.

20140605-1

Motion to Close the Study Phase of GNSO Whois Policy Work

WHEREAS

  1. In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
  2. In 2008, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided recommendations for Whois Studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), which were taken into account as the hypothesis for each study were developed.
  3. Between 2009 and 2012 the GNSO Council had approved a number of studies on certain aspects of the Whois system, specifically, studies relating to Whois Misuse, Whois Privacy Proxy Service Abuse and Whois Registrant Identification, a Whois Privacy Proxy Relay Reveal Feasibility Survey and a Whois Service Requirements Survey;
  4. All the approved studies have now been completed and the results published (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies);
  5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the studies and their results (see summary document at http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/executive-summary-studies-05jun14-en.pdf)
  6. The GNSO Council believes that the studies and their results may be helpful with respect to ongoing policy work within the GNSO and in the ICANN community concerning improvements to and replacement of the Whois protocol and system.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council thanks all the research teams that performed each of the approved studies, and hereby formally closes this study phase of the GNSO's Whois policy work.
  2. The GNSO Council encourages current and future community groups engaged in Whois policy work to continue to consult and review the results of the approved Whois studies, and to recommend to the GNSO Council any future policy work which may need to be done by the GNSO as a result.
  3. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicates the completion of the Whois studies and their results to the GAC Chair.

20140605-2

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms

WHEREAS:

  1. In November 2013 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms;
  2. The GNSO Council's request was the result of the GNSO Council's adoption in November 2013 of a consensus recommendation from the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG);
  3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS in a public comment forum that opened on 10 March 2014, and closed on 6 May 2014;
  4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
  5. The Final Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS was published on 26 May 2014 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf);
  6. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG) and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed.
  2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

20140508-1

Motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13

WHEREAS,

  1. the NGPC has adopted a proposed Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement to reflect requests by .BRAND TLDs whilst delaying the implementation of an additional clause contained therein, which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars;

  2. the NGPC has sent a letter to the GNSO Council Chair asking for advice as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional clause is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-level Domains;

  3. the GNSO Council thanks the NGPC for referring the matter back to the GNSO Council;

  4. the GNSO Council has discussed the matter including with the Brand Registry Group (BRG) and considered the background information provided by the BRG;

  5. the GNSO Council has reached out to participants in the Policy Development Process at the time of developing the policy and the associated Board Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (11 September 2007);

  6. the Council acknowledges and understands the proposal made by .BRAND TLD operators;

It is now RESOLVED:

  1. that the right to only use up to three exclusive registrars, as contained in Specification 13 is inconsistent with Recommendation 19 as (i) the language of this recommendation of the final report of the GNSO does not stipulate any exceptions from the requirements to treat registrars in a non-discriminatory fashion and (ii) the GNSO new gTLDs Committee discussed potential exceptions at the time, but did not include them in its recommendations, which is why the lack of an exception cannot be seen as an unintended omission, but a deliberate policy statement;

  2. that the Council, notwithstanding resolved 1, does not object to the implementation of Specification 13 as a whole, including an additional clause which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars, given the specific circumstances and the fact that a public comment period on Specification 13 was conducted in 2013 without objections from the GNSO, save for that from certain registrars, which was subsequently withdrawn;

  3. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy affecting both existing and future TLDs, if and when the right granted to .BRAND TLDs is at risk of, or bears the risk of, being used for augmenting and / or circumventing the conditions of Specification 13 or any subsequent provisions.

  4. That the Council's acceptance of a variation from original policy recommendation may not be taken as a precedent for any future decisions.

20140326-1

The Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop a Finalized Framework of Operating Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups was approved.

WHEREAS

  1. In March 2012 the GNSO Council approved a set of initial draft principles relating to the formation and operation of cross community working groups (CWGs) and directed ICANN staff to solicit feedback on the principles from the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs);

  2. In June 2013 the ccNSO provided detailed feedback suggesting further clarifications and possible additions to the initial draft principles;

  3. In October 2013 the GNSO Council approved the formation of a Drafting Team to develop a Charter for a new CWG to take forward and synthesize the initial work of the GNSO and the ccNSO feedback, and develop a final framework of operating principles that can function effectively across all SO/ACs relating to the formation, operation, decision making and termination of future CWGs (the "Final Framework");

  4. The Drafting Team, co-chaired by the ccNSO and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new CWG.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Avri Doria as the GNSO Council liaison to the CWG that will develop the Final Framework.

  2. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.

  3. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the WG, the Co-Chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG.

20140326-2

A charter for a Cross-Community Working Group to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (UCTN WG was adopted

Whereas,

  1. The ccNSO Study group on the use of Names for Country and Territory published its Final Report in September 2013 (http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227). The first of the two recommendations of the Study Group to the ccNSO Council was to establish a cross community working group to:

    • Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures;

    • Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and

    • Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework.

  2. The ccNSO Council adopted the recommendations and, as the objective of the proposed Working Group is considered to be of common interest to the broader community, the GNSO, in addition to other Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, was invited to participate in the working group on equal footing.

  3. The ccNSO submitted a proposed charter [include link] for this Cross-Community Working Group, which the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/unct-framework-14mar14-en.pdf ­­­­­­­­­­and appoints Gabriela Szlak and Brian Winterfeldt as the GNSO Council liaison to the Cross-Community Working Group to advice on the feasibility of a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and develop such a framework if deemed feasible.

  2. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for this CWG, each in accordance with its own rules

20140326-3

The Charter of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Process was adopted

WHEREAS

  1. There is wide agreement on the need to engage the GAC early within the GNSO policy development process;

  2. This issue has been identified by:

    • GAC-Board Joint Working Group (JWG)

    • Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT1)

    • Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG)

    • Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2);

  3. The GNSO Council and the GAC jointly formed a Consultation Group to begin work on this topic in November 2013;

  4. The Consultation Group, co-chaired by the GAC and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new Consultation Group (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf).

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf) and appoints Mikey O'Connor as the GNSO Council liaison to the Consultation Group.

20140326-4

Motion to Close the Joint IDN Working Group and Next Steps for Certain IDN-related Issues

WHEREAS

  1. The Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) was chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils in 2009 to discuss issues of common interest between the two Supporting Organizations in relation to Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), in particular, IDN top-level domains (TLDs). The charter was extended in 2010, after the adoption of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan. ;

  2. The JIG identified three issues of common interest, viz. single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs, and Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;

  3. On single character IDN TLDs, the JIG's Final Report recommending that these be delegated in the New gTLD Program and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Program was approved by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, and sent to the ICANN Board in May 2011; the JIG prepared a follow-up letter for the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, which after adoption was jointly sent to the ICANN Board in February 2012;

  4. On IDN Variant TLDs, the JIG published an Initial Report in March 2011, and ICANN has launched an IDN Variant TLD Program to develop solutions to ensure a secure and stable delegation of IDN Variant TLDs;

  5. On Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs, the JIG published its Final Report in November 2013, and ICANN will be launching a project to facilitate universal acceptance of all TLDs at the ICANN meeting in Singapore;

  6. In November 2013, recognizing that further work needed to be done in relation to IDNs, in particular IDN variants and universal acceptance of IDNs, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils requested that the JIG put forward suggestions on how to deal with these issues and deliver these suggestions to the Councils by the ICANN Singapore Meetings in March 2014.

  7. Members of the JIG support the ICANN staff recommendations that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils should each continue to monitor ICANN's community efforts to resolve issues relating to single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs and Universal Acceptance of All TLDs (including IDN TLDs).

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council believes that in view of the ongoing community work at ICANN on these issues the JIG may now be closed, and will terminate the extension of the JIG as outlined in the charter.

  2. The GNSO Council will continue to monitor the progress of the various community-based efforts to resolve the issues raised by the JIG, and will evaluate the need for any further policy work on a periodic basis; and

  3. The GNSO Council thanks the JIG for all its hard work in ensuring that solutions to these important issues are developed through community-based efforts;

20140326-5

GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of a Motion and Working Group Self Assessment

WHEREAS:

  1. The GNSO Council has determined that:

    1. the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council; and

    2. the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for Working Groups (WGs) to self-assess their work.

  2. The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) should consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion and to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.

  3. Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are met:

    1. providing of an explanation for the resubmission;

    2. timely publication of the resubmitted motion; and

    3. seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses.

      The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.

  4. In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures.

  5. The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 10 February 2014 and ending on 03 March 2014 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-10feb14-en.htm), as required by the ICANN Bylaws.

  6. As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed.

RESOLVED

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the resubmission of a motion and a Working Group self-assessment - see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-12mar14-en.pdf

  2. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.

20140123-1

Motion to approval the Charter for the GNSO Metrics and Reporting (non-Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)

WHEREAS

  1. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on metrics and reporting at its meeting on 17 Oct 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf
  2. On 16 May 2013 the GNSO Council deliberated a recommendation on the Uniformity of Reporting from the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) and approved a non-PDP Working Group to consider metrics and reporting;
  3. "The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation."
  4. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a draft charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/metrep-charter-10jan14-en.pdf
  5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft charter submitted by the Drafting Team.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the following charter for the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG and appoints Mikey O'Connor as the GNSO Council Liaison to the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG.
  2. http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/metrep-charter-10jan14-en.pdf
  3. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG be initiated as soon as possible after an adequate duration to conduct a call for volunteers has occurred.
  4. Until formation of the WG, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
  5. The Working Group shall, to the extent that it is practical, follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

20131212-1

Motion to adopt the Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs

WHEREAS,

  1. The JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;
  2. One of those issues concerns Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
  3. The JIG published its Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs for public comment which closed on 16 August 2013, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13-en.htm)
  4. The JIG reviewed the comments received and finalized its report accordingly.
  5. The JIG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 17 November (http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-jig/presentation-jig-final-idn-tld-acceptance-15nov13-en)
  6. The GNSO Council reviewed and considered the Final Report.

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs and its recommendations and will submit it to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
  2. The GNSO Council thanks the JIG for its work, with special thanks to Jothan Frakes for his contributions in proactively reaching beyond the ICANN community to address issues identified in the report.
  3. The GNSO Council recognizes that further work needs to be done in relation to IDNs, in particular IDN variants and universal acceptance of IDNs and asks the JIG to put forward suggestions on how to deal with these issues and deliver these suggestions to the GNSO Council by the ICANN Singapore Meetings in March 2014.

20131212-2

Motion to adopt the Final Report of the joint DNS stability and security analysis Working Group (DSSA)

Whereas

  1. The joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis working group was established by the participating Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO to better understand the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS) in 2011.
  2. In October 2011 the ICANN Board of Directors established the Board DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group (DNS RMF WG), with the objective to oversee the development of a risk management framework and system for the DNS as it pertains to ICANN's role as defined in the ICANN Bylaws.
  3. At the time the DSSA published its draft Report Phase 1 (August 2012), the DSSA went into hibernation to avoid overlap with the work of the Board DNS RMF and noted and informed the participating SO's and AC's that in order to reflect the changed environment and working method, the charter of the DSSA would need to be updated to reflect these changes.
  4. The co-chairs of the DSSA WG have sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/dssa-to-so-ac-chairs-09nov13-en.pdf) to the chairs of each of the participating stakeholder organizations to submit the Final Report and the work products contained in it (available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf). This letter outlines the reasons the co-chairs recommend not proceeding with phase 2.
  5. The DSSA recommends the acceptance of the Final Report and further recommends that the Final Report be disseminated to registry operators and registrars for their consideration.
  6. Upon adoption of the Final report of the DSSA, and notification of adoption to the co-chairs of the DSSA, the working group will be closed.

Resolved

  1. The GNSO Council adopts the Report submitted by the co-chairs of the DSSA WG, as the Final Report of the DSSA WG in accordance with section 2.4 of its charter.
  2. The chair of the GNSO Council is requested to inform the co-chairs of the DSSA WG of adoption of the Report by the GNSO Council.
  3. The chair of GNSO Council is also requested to inform the chairs of the other participating SO's and AC's (SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO and NRO).
  4. Finally, the GNSO Council thanks and congratulates all, and in particular the co-chairs of the WG:
    Olivier Crepin- LeBlond (ALAC), Joerg Schweiger (.DE, ccNSO), Mikey O'Connor (GNSO), James Galvin (SSAC) and Mark Kosters (NRO) and all volunteers and staff who helped with this effort.

20131120-1

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)

WHEREAS

  1. On 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;
  2. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;
  3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the Drafting Team.

RESOLVED,

  1. The GSNO Council approves the charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.pdf and appoints Ching Chiao as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group.
  2. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG be initiated no later than 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
  3. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

20131120-2

Motion on Recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections

WHEREAS:

  1. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore on 28 June 2011, the ICANN Board passed a Resolution authorizing the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD program and directing that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be amended to incorporate text concerning protection of specific names requested by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the American Red Cross (collectively, the RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the top level only during the initial application round, until the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) develop policy advice based on the global public interest;
  2. On 14 September 2011 the GAC sent a Proposal to the GNSO Council recommending that certain RCRC and IOC names also be protected at the second level in a number of specific languages, which proposal was intended to complement the ICANN Board's June 2011 resolution, and which acknowledged the need for further work by the GAC and the GNSO to develop permanent protections for these organizations at the top level;
  3. At the ICANN meeting in Dakar in October 2011, the GNSO Council formed a Drafting Team to develop recommendations relating to both top and second level protections for RCRC and IOC names;
  4. On 11 January 2012 ICANN staff published an updated AGB that prohibited the delegation of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level during the first round of the New gTLD program;
  5. On 26 March 2012 the GNSO Council adopted three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level;
  6. On 12 April 2012 the ICANN Board, acting through its New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), acknowledged receipt of the GNSO's recommendations but decided not to change the AGB then, giving the Rationale that the public interest would be better served at that time by maintaining the status quo of a temporary moratorium;
  7. At the ICANN meeting in Prague in June 2012, the GAC Communique requested that the ICANN Board provide the GAC with "further clarification as to the status of its pending request for enhanced protections [for RCRC and IOC names] at the top and second levels";
  8. On 13 September 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on second level protections of RCRC and IOC names and, if this were not concluded by 31 January 2013, that the GNSO advise the ICANN Board if there was any reason not to provide second level protections for those RCRC and IOC names already protected in the AGB at the top level, in light of all gTLDs approved in this first round of the New gTLD program;
  9. On 13 December 2011 legal counsel from twenty-eight International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) sent a letter to the ICANN CEO and Board Chair, requesting that their organizations' names and acronyms be excluded from third-party registration at both the top and second levels in the first round of the New gTLD program and until further policy could be developed for future rounds; in May 2012, these organizations published a Common Position Paper outlining the possible bases for their requested protections;
  10. On 11 March 2012 the ICANN Board requested that the GAC and the GNSO provide it with "policy advice on the IGOs' request … [to] inform ICANN in providing a meaningful response to the IGOs";
  11. On 12 April 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report as a preceding step to a possible Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine the type of international organization that should receive special protection at the top and second levels (if any), as well as the policies that should govern such protections;
  12. On 1 October 2012 the Final Issue Report recommended that the GNSO initiate a PDP to determine, first, whether additional special protections were needed at the top and second levels for the names and/or acronyms of certain international organizations, namely IGOs and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) - including consideration of further protections of RCRC and IOC names - and if so, to develop policy proposals for such protections; and secondly, to include within the PDP an evaluation of whether such policies should also extend to existing gTLDs;
  13. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council passed a Resolution launching an expedited PDP (which would become the IGO-INGO PDP) to address the issues described in the Final Issue Report;
  14. On 26 November 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on top and second level protections for IGOs and INGOs and, if this work were not concluded by 28 February 2013, that the GNSO advise the Board of any reason it should consider in including IGO names and acronyms that satisfy certain specific criteria on a Reserved Names List applicable to all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD program;
  15. On 20 December 2012 the GNSO Council adopted a further set of three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the second level, pending the outcome of the recently-launched PDP, and communicated these decisions to the GAC;
  16. On 28 February 2013 the GNSO Council Chair sent a letter to the NGPC Chair in response to the NGPC's November Resolution, indicating that the GNSO's PDP was addressing the issues raised by the NGPC;
  17. On 22 March 2013 the GAC requested that the ICANN Board provide second level protections of names and acronyms of certain IGOs according to specific criteria;
  18. On 14 June 2013 the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group published its draft Initial Report for public comment;
  19. At the ICANN meeting in Durban in July 2013 the GAC through its Communique further refined its 22 March 2013 request concerning second level protection for IGO acronyms
  20. On 20 September 2013 the Working Group published its draft Final Report for public comment, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Initial Report;
  21. On 10 November 2013 the Working Group published its Final Report and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report;
  22. The Working Group's Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various Working Group members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo).

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council thanks the Working Group for its hard work and for its thorough report, which includes multiple recommendations pertaining to the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs, and notes the inclusion of the supplemental documentation in the form of the various Minority Statements submitted;
  2. The GNSO Council adopts in full the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group (including the definitions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers for all the various types of organizations considered) and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
    1. In relation to the RCRC:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an RCRC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an RCRC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name and Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names and acronyms subject to this recommendation are to be added to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program.
    2. In relation to the IOC:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an IOC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an IOC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
    3. In relation to IGOs:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow the specified IGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow a specified IGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • To the extent that in the current round Second Level, Exact Match Scope 2 identifiers for the Acronyms of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be added to the TMCH, and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program, these identifiers will similarly be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds.
    4. In relation to INGOs:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an INGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected name at the top level;
      • To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow a specified INGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation, if approved, will be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers (unless otherwise protected) of protected INGOs and Scope 2 identifiers of protected INGOs (all as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names subject to this recommendation are to be added to the TMCH, and the protected organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD program.
  3. The GNSO Council adopts the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group that apply to all four categories of identifiers and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
    • At the Top Level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs under consideration in this PDP shall not be considered as "Strings Ineligible for Delegation"; and
    • At the Second level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGO under consideration in this PDP shall not be withheld from registration. For the current round of New gTLDs, the temporary protections extended to the acronyms subject to this recommendation shall be removed from the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
  4. The GNSO Council notes that the Working Group recommends that the following Consensus recommendations also apply to existing gTLD registries, and accordingly the GNSO Council recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
    • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC at the Second Level (Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the Working Group's Final Report);
    • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC at the Second Level (Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the Working Group's Final Report);
    • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of IGOs at the Second Level (Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the Working Group's Final Report); and
    • To the extent that Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of INGOs are withheld from registration at the Second Level (meaning that in the current round they are placed in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement), existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommendations adopted for an exception procedure (Section 3.4.3 of the Working Group's Final Report) that will allow an INGO with a name withheld from registration to apply for its protected name at the second level.
  5. The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/issue-template-request-form-18nov13-en.pdf) on the Working Group's Consensus recommendation 3.5.3, which states: "The [Working Group] recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations." This Issue Report is anticipated as a preceding step toward the possibility of initiating a PDP on this issue, and the Issue Report shall also address how these matters can or cannot be incorporated into the forthcoming review of the UDRP;
  6. The GNSO Council shall convene an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN staff in developing the implementation details relating to the recommendations adopted herein should they be approved by the ICANN Board, including the Principles of Implementation highlighted by the Working Group in Section 3.7 of its Final Report and any Exception Procedures to be developed. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board and is expected to work with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or any need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to the members of the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group.

20131031-1

Adoption of the Thick Whois Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

1. On 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Thick Whois to make recommendations to the GNSO Council regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries, both existing and future.

2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013;

3. The Thick Whois PDP WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations contained in the report in relation to Thick Whois;

4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Now therefore be it resolved,

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of Thick Whois recommendations as detailed in section 7.1 of the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf

2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to the members of the Thick Whois Working Group.

20131031-2

Approval of a charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI)

WHEREAS

1. On 28 April 2011 the GNSO Council approved the charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI);

2. In 2013 the SCI determined that the Charter as originally approved no longer reflected the current role of the SCI as a standing committee, and furthermore did not contain procedures for selecting the Chair and Vice-Chair of the SCI;

3. The SCI requested guidance from the GNSO Council as to how to proceed with revisions to the Charter that would address its concerns;

4. At its meeting on 05 September 2013 the GNSO Council endorsed the SCI as a standing committee and further requested that the SCI proceed to revise the Charter as it may deem necessary, with the exception of the section on Decision Making;

5. The SCI has since revised the Charter to reflect its role as a standing committee and to include procedures to select the Chair and Vice Chair; and

The GNSO Council has reviewed the revised Charter submitted by the SCI.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council thanks the SCI for its work to date; and

2. The GSNO Council approves the revised SCI Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/improvements-implementation-charter-08oct13-en.pdf which will replace the previous charter effective immediately upon adoption of this motion

3. The GNSO Council appoints [confirm name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation.

20131031-3

Approval of a charter for the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation PDP WG

WHEREAS

1. When initiating negotiations for the RAA in October 2011 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to address remaining items suited for a PDP;

2. In June 2013 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);

3. In September 2013 ICANN staff published a paper confirming the Board's approval of the RAA and identifying the remaining high and medium priority issues for the GNSO PDP in light of the RAA negotiations and prior GNSO and other related community efforts as those issues concerning the accreditation of privacy and proxy services;

4. The GNSO Council has reviewed the issues raised in the ICANN staff paper as well as a draft Working Group Charter incorporating those issues and others identified by the GNSO community as suitable for further consideration by the PDP Working Group http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Maria Farrell as the GNSO Council liaison to the RAA Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG);

2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and

3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

20131010-1

Approve the WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

  1. On 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
  2. On 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;
  3. In July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf;
  4. On 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-30may12-en.htm;
  5. On 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm;
  6. On 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf)

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,

  1. That the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system;
  2. The GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf), to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration.

20131010-2

Next steps in developing a framework for Cross-Community Working Groups

WHEREAS:

  1. in October 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a Resolution approving the formation of a GNSO Drafting Team (DT) to develop a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs;
  2. pursuant to its Charter the DT proposed a set of Draft Principles for Cross Community Working Groups (CCWGs) that were approved by the GNSO Council in March 2012;
  3. the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to forward the Draft Principles to the Chairs of the other SO/ACs for their comments on both the principles and the route forward either for the adoption of the Draft Principles or the development of a related set of principles for the operation of CCWGs
  4. in June 2013 the ccNSO provided comments and suggestions regarding the Draft Principles for further consideration by the GNSO Council; and
  5. in full cooperation with other SO/ACs the GNSO Council now wishes to jointly develop an updated set of principles for CCWGs taking into consideration the feedback provided by the ccNSO and in collaboration with other interested SO/ACs so as to create a framework applicable across all SO/ACs for the effective functioning of CCWGs:

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its work in developing the proposed Draft Principles and the ccNSO for its very constructive feedback;
  2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a paper consolidating the ccNSO feedback with the Draft Principles and highlighting areas requiring additional work as well as questions for further discussion;
  3. The GNSO Council intends to invite the ccNSO to provide a co-chair for, and all SO/ACs to appoint at least one representative each to, a new drafting team co-chaired by a representative from the GNSO and the ccNSO, to be tasked with creating a charter for a community working group having the responsibility of developing the updated set of principles for CCWGs;
  4. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team be formed no later than the first GNSO Council meeting after the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires in November; and
  5. The GNSO Council hereby appoints John Berard as the GNSO co-chair of the new drafting team.

FURTHER RESOLVED:

6. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team utilizes the Draft Principles, the ccNSO feedback and the upcoming staff paper as the basis for its work; and

7. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team, subject to the further input of other interested SO/ACs, consider at a minimum the following matters in developing the set of updated principles:

  • Prior experiences relating to previous and current CCWGs (including without limitation the DSSA Working Group, the Joint GAC-ccNSO IDN Working Group and the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group);
  • The need to align the scope of CCWGs to the remit of each SO/AC and the appropriate delineation of the scope of a CCWG charter as a result;
  • The type of issues or topics that might be suitable for CCWG work;
  • How to deal with outputs from a CCWG and decision-making concerning such outputs, particularly in relation to matters where either an SO/AC disagrees with a CCWG or with one another on a CCWG's recommendations, and taking into account the differing rules and operating procedures within each SO/AC; and
  • The closure of a CCWG and, where applicable, periodic future reviews of CCWG recommendations.

20130801-1

Council resolved to adopt the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 5 July 2013;

3. The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to addressing the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings;

4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Now therefore be it resolved,

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations as detailed in the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf

2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to the members of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group.

20130717-1

Council resolved to adopt the Charter for the Policy Implementation Working Group

WHEREAS:

  1. The GNSO Council decided at its wrap-up session at the ICANN meeting in Beijing to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy implementation that affect the GNSO.
  2. The drafting team was formed and has now submitted a proposed charter for the Policy Implementation Working Group to the GNSO Council.
  3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed charter.

    http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

RESOLVED:

  1. The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Jeff Neuman as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Policy Implementation Working Group.
  2. The GNSO Council further directs that the call for volunteers to form the Policy Implementation Working Group be initiated no later than 7 days after the approval of this motion.

    Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

20130613-1

Council resolved to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions

WHEREAS:

The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity;

The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting;

The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and motions, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 02 May 2013 ending on 23 May 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-02may13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

As a result of the public comment period, the GNSO Council determined that no further changes were necessary;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and / or motions (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-04jun13-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council instructs staff to update any other sections in the GNSO Operating Procedures that are related to the submission of reports and / or motions to ensure that these are consistent with the new provision that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.

20130613-2

Council resolved to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

Whereas

The translation and transliteration of contact information were two of several issues addressed by a cross-community working group – Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) – in its Final Report;

As a result, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);

A Preliminary Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was published on 08 January 2013 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13-en.htm );

A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf).

The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed in this report;

As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;

ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;

RESOLVED:

The GNSO initiates a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf) on the translation and transliteration of contact information;

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

The GNSO requests staff to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations.

20130516-1

Address the Final Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas,

The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports';

The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'.

The GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;

The ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);

The GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and RAPWG Alumni volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;

RAPWG Alumni submitted their proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html);

The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012;

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports.

ICANN Staff completed and released the Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting on 22 March 2013 for public comment. No comments were received;

ICANN Staff submitted the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council on 2 April 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Issue Report and supports the staff recommendation to not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but to await the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council does not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but will review at the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan expected for 31 December 2013 whether additional action is required;

The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation.

20130516-2

Adopt Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a Policy Development Process (PDP)

WHEREAS:

Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation;

The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;

The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;

The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06 March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

As a result of the public comment period, no further changes were deemed necessary by the SCI;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-pdp-redline-03may13-en.pdf)

The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.

20130117-1

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D

Whereas

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO;

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);

A Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 14 November 2012 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14nov12-en.htm).;

A Final Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 8 January 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf)

The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN

20130117-2

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG)

Whereas

On 17 January 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part D WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements

a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;

b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;

c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);

d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants;

Penalties for IRTP Violations

e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Need for FOAs

f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.

20121220-1

Motion to recommend protections in the first round of new gTLDs for certain Red Cross / Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names:

WHEREAS: The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

The IOC/RC Drafting Team established 1 November 2011 by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDs;

The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012;

The GNSO has now (17 October 2012) initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and

Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011 pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations.

That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and

That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board.

20121220-2

Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC)

Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;

Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CTCCCWG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;

Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb12-en.htm);

Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf) for consideration by the SOs and ACs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses these recommendations for establishing the definition, measures and three-year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CTCCC WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group.

20121115-1

Consent Agenda

The Council approved that the IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report prepared by Staff to be sent to the ICANN Board for approval.

20121115-2

Main Agenda

Motion to approve the Charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group

Whereas
On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of certain IGO and INGO names in all gTLDs, and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;

Following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
Charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-07nov12-en.pdf

20121017-1

Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports';

Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'.

Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;

Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);

Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey O'Connor volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;

Whereas Mikey O'Connor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html);

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in:

Thought paper from Mikey O'Connor (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html)

In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

20121017-2

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July 2012;

Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly;

Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf;

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such protections.

Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

20121017-3

Motion to approve the Charter for the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group

Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203);

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Volker Greimann as the GNSO Council Liaison to the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter – http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf

20121017-4

Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions:

  1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
  2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
  3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved

RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf

RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely:

  • Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
  • Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
  • Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
  • Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
  • Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

20121017-5

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board.

WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report.

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry.

RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.

20120913-1

Consent agenda:

Resolved sending the IRD-WG letter from GNSO Council to ICANN Board.

13 September 2012
To: ICANN Board
From: Chair of the GNSO Council and Chair of the SSAC
Via: SSAC and GNSO Liaisons to the ICANN Board

We hereby forward to you the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). The SSAC has approved the report. At its meeting on 27 June 2012 in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion by which it approved the

delivery of the report to the Board. In its motion the Council also agreed to review the recommendations in the Report and to provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications.

As you may recall, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board of Directors approved a resolution (2009.06.26.18) requesting that the GNSO and the SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an IRD-WG to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display

specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. In November 2010 the IRD-WG produced an Interim Report requesting community input on several questions relating to possible models for internationalizing Domain Name Registration

Data. On 03 October the IRD-WG posted a draft Final Report in the Public Forum for comment for 45 days. After considering the comments received, the attached Final Report is the IRD-WG's response to the Board request regarding the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalized registration data. The Report contains the following recommendations:

  1. To introduce submission and display specifications, ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards that the working group has agreed on for internationalizing various registration data elements. This data model should also include tagging information for language/scripts.
  2. The GNSO Council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. The Issue Report should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues. The Issue Report should consider policy questions raised in the IRD-WG Final Report and should also recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.
  3. ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization, including 2 but not limited to the work products resulting from recommendations 1 and 2, and the requirements enumerated in the IRD-WG Final Report.
  4. ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars and persuade ccTLD registries and registrars to support the following standards:
    • Domain Names - both A-label and U-label forms during both submission and display for all domain names except nameservers; nameserver Names- require Alabel form, and optionally U-label form;
    • Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email-RFC 6531; Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable; Date and time - in UTC as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset from the zero meridian.

The GNSO Council and the SSAC welcome comments from the Board concerning this report.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council
Patrik Fältström

Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee

20120913-2

Main agenda

Resolved to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures incorporating a consent agenda provision and updated voting results table and to adopt a technical change in proxy notification

Whereas, the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 20 February to formalize the process for a consent agenda with a view to including the consent agenda in the GNSO rules and procedures;

Whereas the SCI deliberated on a process for a consent agenda and reached unanimous consensus on a proposed consent agenda provision for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures;

Whereas the voting results table included in the GNSO Operating Procedures required updating following the adoption of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process;

Whereas the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed consent agenda provision as well as the updated voting results table were put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 9 July 2012 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-operating-procedures-2012-09jul12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas as a result of the public comment period, no further changes were deemed necessary by the SCI;

Whereas the GNSO Council also requested the SCI to review the current procedures in place for proxy voting;

Whereas the SCI reviewed the current procedures in place and recommends that no changes are made to the proxy notification procedures in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures but instead requests that staff makes a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the new consent agenda provision and the updated voting results table (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

The GNSO Council requests staff to make a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.

20120627-1

GNSO Council Motion to Approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data.

WHEREAS, in September 2009 the GNSO Council approved the Charter of the IRD-WG.

WHEREAS, on 15 November 2010 the IRD-WG published an Interim Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS the GNSO Council wishes to coordinate with the SSAC to jointly deliver this report to the Board in a timely way, but recognizes that further consideration of the recommendations contained in the report, especially those that may have policy implications, is needed by the GNSO Council.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council approves of the delivery of the revised Final Report to the ICANN Board and requests staff to prepare a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to transmit the Report.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council shall review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the IRD-WG members for their diligence and persistence on this important topic and upon the agreement of the SSAC disbands the Working Group.

20120412-1

Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;

Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);

Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012.

20120412-2

Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants;

Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;

Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any;

Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;

And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica.

Now therefore be it resolved,

The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues:

  • Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and
  • Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level.

20120326-1

Motion to recommend to the Board a solution to protect certain Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names at the Top Level in New gTLDS

Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb);

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns;

Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012;

Whereas, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board's resolution is needed to be available before the end of the Application Window;

Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the IOC and RCRC;

Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level; and

Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations of the IOC/RC Drafting Team:

Recommendation

1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning:

a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable.

b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.

c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:

i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.

ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by:

1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or

2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:

a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and

b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible

The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet…The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." The Drafting Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of languages currently provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient.

In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.

Recommendation 3: Protections must be reviewed after the first round and that review should include consideration of changing the language to general requirements rather than naming specific organizations.

In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. The Drafting Team recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed.

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its next meeting as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.

20120314-1

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois; (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf)

Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.

Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

20120314-2

Motion to approve the Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group

Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112);

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Joy Liddicoat as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-05mar12-en.pdf

20120314-3

Motion to approve Cross Community Working Group Principles

Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;

Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;

Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.

20120216-1

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

  1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
  2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
  3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
  4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
  5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request 'ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation';

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-recommendation-8-icann-staff-16feb12-en.pdf);

WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html);

WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html);

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf).

20120216 Consent Agenda:

Recommendations Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Recommendation 9, part 2

20120119-1

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

  • Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report?(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
  • Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
  • Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
  • Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);?e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily?accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation;

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);

WHEREAS comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).

20111215-1

Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both

(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and

(b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf) and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . to allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting."

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD.

20111215-2

Motion for JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) response to August 2011 Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

WHEREAS, the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;

WHEREAS, the subject of Single Character IDN TLDs was discussed at the GNSO IDN WG, the GNSO Reserved Names WG and incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD Recommendations, and consistently resulted in community consensus to allow the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs;

WHEREAS, the JIG developed and published an Initial Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and incorporated the comments (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf) into a draft Final Report (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) for further public comments,

WHEREAS, the JIG conducted a public session during the Cartagena ICANN meetings (http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15395);

WHEREAS, the JIG incorporated comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-draft-final-report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf) and completed a Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf) which was approved by the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-10may11-en.pdf) and GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) councils;

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board made a resolution at their August 25, 2011 meeting regarding the subject: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5; and,

WHEREAS, the JIG considered the resolution and found it to be in contradiction with the community consensus on the matter,

NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs:

JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

Dear ICANN Board,

First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs. In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:

Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category. The August 2011 Board resolution (by specifying that "processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.") perhaps inadvertently conflicted with this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified.

The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf). Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs. The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale.

While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs. Furthermore, while input from ACs is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, especially for the New gTLD process.

Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a "good to have" feature, but a necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly attractive and competitive gTLDs. As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. ".word" would be an acceptable ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar single-syllable-single-word TLD ".字" would not be acceptable for Chinese), creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the adoption of IDN.

The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the Board to:

Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD mechanisms wait for the other;

If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and,

Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation before the application period for the first round is over.

The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet. The JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation.

We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.

Sincerely,

ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK])
GNSO Council (approval: [LINK])
JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group

20111026-1

Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated Final Report

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm);

WHEREAS the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107);

WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Public+Comment+Review+Tool+-+FINAL+-+21+September+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1317022410000);

WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf) to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf).

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board.

20111026-2

GNSO Council Chair election

The GNSO Council is delighted to announce the election of Stéphane van Gelder as Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice Chair of the Non Contracted Parties House (NCPH) and Jeff Neuman as Vice Chair of the Contracted Parties House (CPH). The Council wishes to thank the outgoing NCPH Vice Chair, Mary Wong for her year of service and dedication.

20111006-1

Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG)

Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,
and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home),
and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/),
and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00);

Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;

Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;

Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;

Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements - Final Report;

Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;

Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf

Resolved,

The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.

The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf

In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012.

20111006-2

Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;

Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);

Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department 'to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.

RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation.

RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.

RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.

RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.

RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.

RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time.

RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time.

20111006-3

Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system

WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and

WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:

1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.

Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.

2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar's respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.

3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention

(example: lawenforcement@example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.

4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency's first contact with a registrar.

5. The Issue Report should include a freedom-of-expression impact analysis.

20111006-4

Motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG):

Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs;

Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group;

Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and

Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012.

20110922-1

The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' WHOIS)

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

  1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
    http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm)
  2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
  3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
  4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
  5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)

20110922-2

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C

Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO;

Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.pdf);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf);

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO

RESOLVED:

The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf).

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

20110922-3

Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG)

Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

  1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
  2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
  3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.

20110922-4

Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies;

WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum;

WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011;

WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11aug11-en.pdf indicating that no comments were received;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience.

RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

20110922-5

The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT

Whereas:

The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and,

The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and

The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report

(https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And

The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and

The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents,

However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions,

Resolved:

The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and

The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and

The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community, and

The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and

The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and

The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

20110922-6

Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI):

Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;

Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting;

Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;

Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board;

Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group;

Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and

Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf), a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011.

20110721-1

Motion to extend the mandate of the Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
Whereas
The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907); and
Both the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan and the new gTLD process have been approved by the Board of Directors, bringing into effect the JIG charter condition: Upon adoption of either the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan or the new gTLD process by the ICANN Board of Directors, the WG will be closed, unless both the ccNSO and GNSO Council extend the duration of the JIG WG.; and
The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; and
The JIG has delivered a first report on Item 1 ¡°Implementation of Single Character IDN TLD¡± to the ccNSO council and the GNSO council on 30 March 2011; and
The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council approved the report on April 7, 2011 and May 10, 2011 respectively; and
The final report on the first item of interest was delivered to the ICANN Board on May 11, 2011; and
Two issues of common interest remain from the JIG charter; and
The JIG WG has discussed and proposed the following target timeline for completion of the remaining items of common interest:

  • 2011 Jul/Aug: Stocktaking Development Initial Report for #3 (Public comments Sep 2011)
  • 2011 Sep/Oct: Completion of Initial Report for #2 (Public comments Nov 2011)
  • 2011 Nov/Dec: Completion of Draft Final Report for #2 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012)
  • 2012 Jan/Feb: Completion of Draft Final Report for #3 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012)
  • 2012 Mar: Finalization of Final Report for #2
  • 2012 Apr: Finalization of Final Report for #3
  • 2012 May-Oct: Implementation Follow up

Resolved
The JIG Working Group is extended through 2012 to complete work items Two (2. IDN Variant TLDs) and Three (3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs ) from the original charter.

20110721-2

Motion on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas on 7 May 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) addressing the following five charter questions:
1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 14 June 2011;

Whereas the PEDNR WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

Whereas the PEDNR WG considers all the recommendations listed below as interdependent and has recommended that the GNSO Council should consider these recommendations as such;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors:
(A):
1. Define ¡°Registered Name Holder at Expiration¡± (RNHaE) as the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. If the domain name registration was modified pursuant to a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal but not at the explicit request of the registrant, the RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant immediately prior to that modification. (PEDNR Recommendation #1)

2. For at least 8 consecutive days, at some point following expiration, the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE, at the time of expiration, must be interrupted1 by the registrar, to the extent that the registry permits such interruptions 1, and the domain must be renewable by the RNHaE until the end of that period. This 8-day period may occur at any time following expiration. At any time during the 8 day period, the Registered Name Holder at Expiration may renew the domain with the Registrar and the Registrar, within a commercially reasonable delay, will restore the domain name to resolve to its original DNS resolution path prior to expiration. Notwithstanding, the Registrar may delete the domain at any time during the Autorenew grace period. (PEDNR Recommendation #2)

1 DNS interruption is defined as total Internet service interruption except for an informational web page (only one IP on which only port 80 is active).

3. If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing
website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Wording in the policy must make clear that ¡°instructions¡± may be as simple as directing the RNHaE to a specific web site. (PEDNR Recommendation #3)

4. The RNHaE cannot be prevented from renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes made by the Registrar that were not at the RNHaE.s request. (PEDNR Recommendation #4)

5. The registration agreement must include or point to any fee(s) charged for the postexpiration renewal of a domain name. If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name or the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. (PEDNR Recommendation #5)

6. The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications, or must point to the location where such information can be found. What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable. (PEDNR Recommendation #6)

7. Registrar must notify Registered Name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. One such notice must be sent one month or 30 days prior to expiration (¡¾4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to expiration (¡¾3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. (PEDNR Recommendation #7)

8. Unless the Registered Name is renewed or deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification to the RNHaE, which includes renewal instructions, must be sent after expiration. (PEDNR Recommendation #8)

9. Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit registrant action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. (Recommendation #9)

10. With the exception of sponsored2 gTLDs, all gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing unsponsored gTLDs that do not currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must offer the RGP. As part of the implementation, ICANN Staff should consider the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal (see http://www.icann.org/en/ meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) (PEDNR Recommendation #13)
2 An unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. It should be noted that this distinction is no longer used in the new gTLD program.

11. If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. (PEDNR Recommendation #14)

12. A transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed. (PEDNR Recommendation #15)

13. In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrars that ICANN has published web content as described in PEDNR Recommendation #16:

Registrars, who have a web presence, must provide a link to the ICANN content on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies.

Registrars may also host similar material adapted to their specific practices and processes.

Registrar must point to the ICANN material in a communication sent to the registrant immediately following initial registration as well as in the mandated annual WHOIS reminder. (PEDNR Recommendation #17)
Note: Some of these recommendations may need special consideration in the context of existing provisions in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or exceptions due to fraud, breach of registration agreement or other substantive reasons and the GNSO Council, therefore, recommends that such considerations are taken into account as part of the implementation of these recommendations, once adopted.

(B)

The GNSO Council recommends the following best practices for promotion by ICANN and the Registrar Stakeholder Group:

- If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by postexpiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. (PEDNR Recommendation #10)
- The notification method explanation (see recommendation #9) should include the registrar.s email address from which notification messages are sent and a suggestion that registrants save this email address as a .safe sender. to avoid notification emails being blocked by spam filter software. (PEDNR Recommendation #11)
- Registrars should advise registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact that is not associated with the domain name itself so that in case of expiration reminders can be delivered to this secondary email point of contact. (PEDNR Recommendation #12)

(C)

The GNSO Council recommends that ICANN, in consultation with Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, will develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Such material may include registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle and guidelines for keeping domain name records current. (PEDNR Recommendation #16).

(D)

ICANN Compliance is requested to provide updates to the GNSO Council on a regular basis in relation to the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed
recommendations, either in the form of a report that details amongst others the number of complaints received in relation to renewal and/or post-expiration related matters or in the form of audits that assess if the policy has been implemented as intended. (PEDNR Recommendation #18)

(E)

The GNSO Council shall convene a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the PEDNR Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new PEDNR policy recommendations, the PEDNR Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to the members of the PEDNR Working Group.

20110721-3

Motion regarding Public Comments on the Policy Development Process Work Team Final Report

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN.s policy development needs;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm);

WHEREAS ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the comments received and posted it at
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-pdp-final-report-11jul11-en.pdf

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council directs the PDP-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the PDP-WT Final Report as deemed appropriate. The PDP-WT should submit the updated version of the Final Report to the GNSO Council as soon as possible, preferably in time for consideration at its meeting in October 2011.

20110622-1

Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.
Resolved

RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors:
1. Requiring Registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC). To this end the language of section 4 (Registrar Coordination) and Section 6 (Registry Requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy should be updated as follows:
Transfer Emergency Action Contact (Append to Section 4)
Registrars will establish a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) for urgent communications relating to transfers. The goal of the TEAC is to quickly establish a real-time conversation between registrars (in a language that both parties can understand) in an emergency. Further actions can then be taken towards a resolution, including initiating existing (or future) transfer dispute or undo processes.
Communications to TEACs will be reserved for use by ICANN-Accredited Registrars, gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN Staff. The TEAC point of contact may be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication channel and will be recorded in, and protected by, the ICANN RADAR system.
Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain.
Messages sent via the TEAC communication channel must generate a non-automated response by a human representative of the gaining Registrar. The person or team responding must be capable and authorized to investigate and address urgent transfer issues. Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial request, although final resolution of the incident may take longer.
The losing registrar will report failures to respond to a TEAC communication to ICANN Compliance and the registry operator. Failure to respond to a TEAC communication may result in a transfer-undo in accordance with Section 6 of this policy and may also result in further action by ICANN, up to and including non-renewal or termination of accreditation.
Both parties will retain correspondence in written or electronic form of any TEAC communication and responses, and share copies of this documentation with ICANN and the registry operator upon request. This documentation will be retained in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Users of the TEAC communication channel should report non-responsive Registrars to ICANN. Additionally, ICANN may conduct periodic tests of the Registrar TEAC communication channel in situations and a manner deemed appropriate to ensure that registrars are indeed responding to TEAC messages.
(Append to Section 6) 6 iv. Documentation provided by the Registrar of Record prior to transfer that the Gaining Registrar has not responded to a message via the TEAC within the timeframe specified in Section 4.
In addition, update section 6 to reflect that the registry, in case of a transfer undo, will reverse the transfer and reset the registrar of record filed to its original state ('In such case, the transfer will be reversed and the Registrar of Record field reset to its original state'). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #1)
2. Modifying section 3 of the IRTP to require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to notify the Registered Name Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing Registrars ("Confirmation FOA") to the Registrant. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #5)
3. Modifying Reason for Denial #6 as follows: Express objection to the transfer by the authorized Transfer Contact. Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or electronic means) by the authorized Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the authorized Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis and upon request by the authorized Transfer Contact, the Registrar must remove the lock or provide a reasonably accessible method for the authorized Transfer Contact to remove the lock within five (5) calendar days. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #6)
4. Deleting denial reason #7 as a valid reason for denial under section 3 of the IRTP as it is technically not possible to initiate a transfer for a domain name that is locked, and hence cannot be denied, making this denial reason obsolete. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 - part 1)

RESOLVED (B), the GNSO Council recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the GNSO Council recommends that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include practical measures that registrants can implement "in house", such as ways to protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system for possible account compromise. The GNSO Council Chair will reach out to the ALAC and other ICANN structures to inform them of this recommendation and discuss how the GNSO may contribute to this promotion. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #2)

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of IRTP Part B Recommendation #7 and will consider this recommendation when it considers the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.

RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.

RESOLVED (F), the GNSO Council will consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July.

RESOLVED (G), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part C, which should include:
- "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #4)
- Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
- Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

20110622-2

MOTION 2. RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING
Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/osc-recommended-revisions-proxy-voting-14jun11-en.pdf
to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directs Staff produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these recommendations, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

20110609-1

WHOIS Registrant Identification Study Motion May 2011

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).

On 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for a Whois "Registrant Identification" Study, finding that the study would cost approximately $150,000 (USD) and take approximately one year to complete (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf). This exploratory study would examine Whois data for a representative sample of gTLD domain names to classify the types of entities that register domains, including natural persons, various kinds of legal persons and Privacy and Proxy service providers.

On 28 April 2011 the Council deferred consideration of the Whois Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requested that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.

On 20 May 2011 a volunteer Whois studies group submitted to the GNSO Council revised Whois Registrant Identification Study Terms of Reference

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-en.pdf

supporting Rationale

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-registrant-id-study-rationale-20may11-en.pdf

and Summary of Changes

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/summary-changes-whois-registrant-id-study-tor-20may11-en.pdf

Resolved;

The Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the Whois Registrant Identification Study as set forth in the revised Terms of Reference http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-en.pdf

Further resolved, the Council asks staff to report back to the Council if the original estimate for the study of $150,000 USD is exceeded by greater than 20%.

Further resolved, in recognition of the substantial amount of coordination needed to direct the research, that staff be given the discretion to manage this study serially or in parallel with the other Whois studies, with a goal of expediting completion of all of the studies as efficiently as possible.

20110609-2

Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the Policy Development Process Work Team Final Report and Initiate a Public Comment Period

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;

(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008

(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)

(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may11-en.htm, on 31 May 2011 to the GNSO Council;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the PDP-WT Final Report as delivered by the PDP-WT and directs ICANN Staff to commence a thirty (30) day public comment period on this Final Report.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the PDP-WT Final Report as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the new Policy Development Process be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the new PDP by the ICANN Board, in order to serve as a primer to the new Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and PDP Manual for potential PDP WG members.

20110609-3

Motion regarding the JAS milestone report.

Whereas:

The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group released it Milestone Report posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the original charter and requested an update to the Working Groups charter, and

The GNSO and ALAC, separately, renewed the Working Groups charter with additional work item in February 2011, and

The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and

The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the work as defined in its extended charter and published a second milestone report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 8 May 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled JAS Milestone Report. and

The GNSO council does not wish to delay the start of the new gTLD application process, and

The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions,

Resolved:

The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and

The GNSO Council request that the report be put out for community review as soon as possible,

The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community,

That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

20110428-1

WHOIS Motion

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).

Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, ifany, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to providecost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).

On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. TheWhois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.

On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 (USD) and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacyservices.

The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 (USD) for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8).

On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009.

On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy orprivacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts withoverall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 (USD) and take less than a year to complete.

On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do.

Resolved:

Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.

Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-recommendations-rysg-29mar11-en.pdf and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 report as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf.

Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in staff's 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf.

Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up any shortfall of $130,000 (USD) between the amount of "at least $400,000" (USD) that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000) (USD); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) (USD) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000) (USD); and the Proxy and Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000) (USD), total of $530,000 (USD).

Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible.

20110428-2

Motion to terminate the Policy Process Steering Committee

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;

(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008

(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)

(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency, and the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP WT), which was chartered to make recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP;

WHEREAS the WG WT has already completed its tasks;

WHEREAS the PDP WT has worked diligently to develop the proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process and expects to deliver a final report soon;

WHEREAS submitting the PDP-WT report to the PPSC would add additional delay to the completion and approval of the new GNSO PDP;

WHEREAS a Standing Committee for Improvement Implementation (SCI) has been created and will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council hereby terminates the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the PPSC for their dedication and commitment.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests the Charter of the PDP-WT to be updated from 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for PPSC review' to 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for the GNSO Council's review'.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council hereby instructs the SCI to amend its charter approved by the GNSO Council on April 7, 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104) to include "recommendations provided by the PDP-WT as approved by the GNSO Council" in addition to those recommended by the OSC and PPSC as approved by the GNSO Council.

20110428-3

Motion re: Public Comments on Global Outreach Recommendations

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations at: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf;

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;

WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO" at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf;

WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers;

WHEREAS, on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the document by the OSC and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach;

WHEREAS, ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the four comments received and posted it in the Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC to ask the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit.

20110407-1

Motion to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI)

Whereas the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 8 December 2010 to establish a drafting team to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010;

Whereas a Drafting Team has formed and its members have developed a Charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation as proposed (see hereunder);

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to send a request for volunteers to those entities identified in the Charter as eligible for member and observer status of the Standing Committee;

The GNSO Council appoints Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as the interim Chair of the Standing Committee, who will serve as the interim Chair until the Standing Committee has selected its own Chair.

Charter - Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI)

General

The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  • On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
  • On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)

The immediate goal of the OSC and PPSC is to develop:

Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements" which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council.

It should be acknowledged that OSC and PPSC still have tasks to finish, possibly on different timescales. Expiry of their charters has therefore to be taken carefully into consideration by the GNSO Council. Nevertheless, since several OSC and PPSC recommendations have already been adopted and implemented and the practicability of some of them has raised concerns, it is advisable to kick off the SCI work immediately. Following the implementation of further OSC/PPSC recommendations the SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of these new recommendations. This in consequence might mean that the OSC/PPSC and SCI will be coexistence for a certain period of time.

Working method

It is recommended that the SCI follows the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

(Approved by the GNSO Council on 16 March 2011)", as deemed appropriate

The SCI is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the SCI may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract volunteers that are not members or observers of the SCI. However, the SCI remains responsible for reviewing and approving any recommendations, which are to be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration.

For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information.

For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. In order to have comprehensive information on the issue available this group is requested to provide the following information, if applicable:

  1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.)
  2. To which rules or processes implemented by the OSC or PPSC do you refer?
  3. Please outline the problems
  4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems?
  5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer?

One member of the group which submitted the request should - if not already represented on the SCI - be nominated as an observer to the SCI until the review of the issue in question has been completed.

At its kick-off meeting the SCI should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN.

Members of the Standing Committee (Primary and Alternate members)

  • 1 representative from each constituency/SG
  • 1 NomCom appointee

Members of the Standing Committee may designate an alternate who can participate in the SCI deliberations in case of absence of the primary member. Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call.

Observers of the Standing Committee

  • 1 representative from each constituency in formation
  • Liaison or an appointed representative from other ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (as determined by the SCI as appropriate)
  • 1 observer representing the group that has submitted a request for review during the time that the request for review is being dealt with (provided that the group is not yet represented on the SCI)

Staff Support

The ICANN Staff assigned to the SCI will fully support the work of the committee as directed by the Chair including meeting support, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate.

Staff assignments to the SCI:

  • GNSO secretariat
  • 1 ICANN policy staff member

Decision making

Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6).

Reporting

At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning:

  • The issues dealt with and related status
  • Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council
  • An activity timeline

20110407-2

Motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs

WHEREAS,
The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907);

The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
The JIG has issued an Initial Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm), and thereupon a Draft Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm), and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs;

The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and,
The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs.

RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it pertains to the new gTLDs.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ccNSO Chair.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs".

20110407-3

Motion re: Revision of Section 5.0 Statements of Interest of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf that would simplify and clarify the procedures;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a proposed revision of Section 5 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the proposed revision of Section 5.0 at its 24 February 2011 meeting and initiated a 30-day public comment period http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201103-en.htm#gnso-5 on the document;

WHEREAS, there were no comments on the proposed revision of Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf in the public forum and the final version http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the revision of Section 5.0 as proposed by the OSC and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revised Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the procedures in the revised Section 5.0.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

20110316-1

Motion to Adopt the GNSO Working Group Guidelines

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;

WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;

WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010
http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf
and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council initiated a 21-day public comment period (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#gnso-wg-guidelines) on the proposed GNSO Working Guidelines and has requested the PPSC to review the comments received and make any changes it deems appropriate;

WHEREAS, the PPSC has made changes it deemed appropriate following review of the public comments and has submitted this updated version include link to the GNSO Council for its consideration;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as proposed by the PPSC include link and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO Working Group Guidelines into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.

RESOLVED, to the extent practical and feasible, each existing Working Group shall incorporate these Working Group Guidelines into their activities.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the WG-WT and PPSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

20110224-1

Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 Statements of Interest

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a revision of Section 5
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf
that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the revised Section 5.0 submitted by the OSC and directs Staff to post this document for thirty – (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

20110224-2

Approval of Global Outreach Recommendations for public comment

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;

WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO"
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf

WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the document submitted by the OSC
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf
and directs Staff to post this document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

20110203

Motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report.

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), and

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf),

and

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.

RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner.

RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider:

  • How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.
  • Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed.

RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report.

This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:

  • Practices for identifying stolen credentials
  • Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)
  • Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements by registrars who adopt them, and for use by TLD operators who adopt them.
  • Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusers'
  • Practices for suspending domain names
  • Account access security management
  • Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries
  • Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.

RESOLVED #4 (As proposed by Zahid Jamil): Resolved, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to add the remaining RAP Recommendations to the GNSO Project List so that the GNSO Council can keep track of the remaining recommendations and address these as appropriate. These remaining RAP Recommendations are:

  • WHOIS Access – Recommendation #1: The GNSO should determine what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion.
    The GNSO Council should consider how such might be related to other WHOIS efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS policy and implementation required by ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments.
  • Uniformity of Contracts:
    View A: The RAPWG recommends the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.
    View B: Opposed to the recommendation for an Issues Report as expressed in view A
  • Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #1:
    Rough Consensus: Make no recommendation. The majority of RAPWG members expressed that gripe site and offensive domain names that use trademarks should be addressed in the context of cybersquatting and the UDRP for purposes of establishing consistent registration abuse policies in this area, and that creating special procedures for special classes of domains, such as offensive domain names, may present problems.
    Alternate view: The URDP should be revisited to determine what substantive policy changes, if any, would be necessary to address any inconsistencies relating to decisions on "gripe" names and to provide for fast track substantive and procedural mechanisms in the event of the registration of deceptive domain names that mislead adults or children to objectionable sites.
  • Cybersquatting – Recommendation #2:
    View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
    View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
  • Fake Renewal Notices – Recommendation #2 – conditional on #1: The following recommendation is conditional. The WG would like to learn the ICANN Compliance Department's opinions regarding Recommendation #1 above, and the WG will further discuss Recommendation 2 looking forward to the WG's Final Report.
    The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate fake renewal notices.
  • Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices.
  • Cross-TLD Registration Scam: The RAPWG recommends the GNSO monitor for Cross-TLD registration scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate research with the community to determine the nature and extent of the problem. The WG believes this issue warrants review but notes there is not enough data at this time to warrant an Issues Report or PDP.
  • Meta Issue - Uniformity of Reporting: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes.
  • Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #2:
    View A: Turn down a proposed recommendation that registries develop best practices to restrict the registration of offensive strings.
    View B: Registries should consider developing internal best practice policies that would restrict the registration of offensive strings in order to mitigate the potential harm to consumers and children.
  • Domain Kiting / Tasting: It is unclear to what extent domain kiting happens, and the RAPWG does not recommend policy development at this time. The RAPWG suggests that the Council monitor the issue (in conjunction with ongoing reviews of domain-tasting), and consider next steps if conditions warrant.

20110113-1

Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS) Motion

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:

  1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives:

    1. Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

    2. Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

    3. Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers.

    4. Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from other top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians, in the application for, and administration of, a new top-level domain

    5. Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

  2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group's work.

  3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.

  4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.

20110113-2

Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

"WHEREAS, a motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvement to the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement has been submitted and seconded;

(8 December motions https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions)

WHEREAS, that motion called for the GNSO Council to accept the final report to approve the form of the Registrant Rights andResponsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the final report, to recommend that staff commence the consultation process withRegistrars to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the Web sites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA, and to recommend that staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the final report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report;

WHEREAS, some GNSO Councillors have expressed the view that further work is necessary on the portion of that motion relating to
the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council does not wish for such work to delay progress on the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter referenced above;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement be amended as set out below:

WHEREAS, on 4 March, 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement (RAA) developed as
a result of a consultative process initiated by ICANN;

WHEREAS, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of theAt-Large community to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA. Specifically, to draft a charter identifying Registrant Rights and Responsibilities;

WHEREAS, on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals for improvements to the RAA;
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the final report and desires to approve some of the recommendations and proposals contained therein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the final report for improvements to the RAA;
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the final responsibilities charters as described in Annex D of the final report;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that the staff commence the consultation process with registrars in the RAA to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites on specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA.

20110113-3

Motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009

Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 13 August 2009;

Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy, but did develop several other recommendations that were adopted by the Council on 3 September 2009 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm);

Whereas the GNSO Council intended to create a drafting team to develop a plan with a set of priorities and schedule to address the adopted recommendations for review and consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas due to workload and other priorities such a drafting team was never created;

Whereas the Council tasked the Council leadership at the wrap up meeting at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena to put forward proposals to suggest which projects should be continued and discontinued;

Whereas the Council leadership has reviewed the Fast Flux Recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council, also in light of the recent recommendations made by the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group;

Whereas the Council leadership has recommended the approach outlined below to the GNSO Council for consideration as an acceptable way of implementing the adopted recommendations and therewith closing the project;

RESOLVED,

The Council accepts the approach identified below for the adopted recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm) and instructs the ICANN Staff to implement these recommendations as set forth below:

  1. Adopted recommendation Fast-Flux Working Group (FFWG) #1: To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux

    • Proposed implementation: This recommendation is encompassed by the Registration Abuse Policies WG (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 which recommends the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.

  2. Adopted FFWG recommendation #2: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux;

  3. Adopted FFWG recommendation #3: To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions;

    • The RAPWG Final Report and the Fast-Flux Working Group Final Report indicated that fast-flux is generally a domain use issue and not a domain registration issue, and as such falls outside the purview of the GNSO and ICANN. Therefore no further action is recommended*.

  4. Adopted recommendation #4: To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a "best practices facilitator" within the community;

    • Proposed Implementation: Integrate this recommendation into the RAP WG Recommendation on "Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices" which recommends that the "GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices."

  5. Adopted FFWG recommendation 5: To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts;

    • Proposed Implementation:

      It is assumed that if the Registration Abuse Policies WG's (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 is adopted by the Council, that the subsequent effort will be open to participation by stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community.

  6. Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.

    • Proposed Implementation: No action needed at this point, but should be included if any future PDPs are initiated on this subject.

  7. Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.

    • Proposed Implementation: The Council deems this work to be completed in conjunction with the above-proposed implementation proposals.

RESOLVED FURTHER

The Council now considers the work of the Fast Flux WG complete. As such, the "Fast Flux Council Follow-up" action item is deemed closed and will be deleted from the Pending Project List.

20110113-4

Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;

WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;

WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010
http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf
and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

20101208-1

Motion to Terminate the Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars.

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations;

Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I);

Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries;

With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and

Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP.

20101208-2

Motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB.)

WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law;

WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;

AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community;

RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;

RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the Council, on the CWG recommendations.

20101208-3

MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG)

WHEREAS, at their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS);

WHEREAS, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, and should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort;

WHEREAS, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agreed to establish a Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG), in accordance with each organization's own rules and procedures and invite other AC's to liaise and engage with the DSSA-WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate;

WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November 2010 at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter.

20101208-4

Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters.

Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf;

Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements;

Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council;

Whereas the Council has now twice extended the terms of those committees to allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10mar10-en.htm);

Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work;

RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the ICANN public meeting in June 2011.

RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery.

RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010.

20100908-1

Amendment to the MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS

In the light of the fact that it sounds as if numerous constituencies and stakeholder groups may not have had the opportunity to fully discuss adding George Asare Sakyi, I move that his name be deleted from the list of candidates put forth to the selectors for the SSR review Team.

20100908-2

MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS

WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Whois Policy;
WHEREAS, these AOC review teams will include members endorsed by the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to endorse applicants to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR) and Whois Policy;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the approved Endorsement Process, the following applicants are hereby endorsed by the GNSO Council to serve on the AOC review teams listed below:
SSR Review Team:
Jeff Brueggeman
David Cake
Rick Wilhelm
Ken Silva

WHOIS Policy:
Susan Kawaguchi
Kim G. Von Arx
James Bladel
Kathy Kleiman
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Secretariat is requested to forward, as appropriate, the names of the endorsed applicants to serve on the "WHOIS Policy" and "Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS" review teams to the RT Selectors.

20100908-3

MOTION TO PURSUE STUDY OF WHOIS MISUSE

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).

This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).

On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).

For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.

On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council.
(See Motion 3 at 04 mar 2009 motions).

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf)

This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.

At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:

First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:

  • the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
  • the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."

The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)

The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies.

Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).

Amendment on behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group

Further resolved that ICANN staff is requested to ensure the study reaches out to a global set of consumer and data protection, regulatory and law enforcement organizations, including the range of government organizations who would have reason to compile and keep records of Whois misuse,

Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to protect the confidentiality and privacy of Registrant Whois data collected for this study, according to best practices including encryption, and Registrants and all groups contacted be informed of this protection.

Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include in the study analysis all individual elements in the Whois data which descriptive study surveyed sources identify as having been misused; data elements identified by these surveyed sources will not be discarded or otherwise eliminated on the grounds that the actual data source is unclear or that online search verification discloses multiple possible sources of the data.

Further resolved that ICANN staff will extend the time of the Experimental Study from 90 days to a minimum of 6 months to better track the results of the data harvesting.

20100908-4

MOTION TO FORWARD THE REVISED INITIAL REPORT ON THE VERTICAL INTEGRATION PDP TO THE ICANN BOARD.
Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;
Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group;
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.

20100908-5

MOTION TO SUPPORT A CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP ON NEW gTLD RECOMMENDATION 6

WHEREAS, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program contains appropriate safeguards to address culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings, while protecting internationally recognized freedom of expression rights;

*WHEREAS, numerous stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 regarding procedures for addressing culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings;

NCSG amended clause:
WHEREAS, *various stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to participate in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a cross-community working group to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that Stéphane Van Gelder shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this cross-community working group until 13 September 2010;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the Terms of Reference to guide the activities of this cross-community working group;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that ICANN Staff shall identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed.

20100805-1

Motion to approve the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) AND Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) Deliverables (29 July 2010)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 23 June 2010 meeting in Brussels, accepted a set of deliverables submitted by the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team;

WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#gcot-csg-recommendations completed between 28 June 2010 and 18 July 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis has been published;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the these deliverables as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; and

WHEREAS, there were no public comments submitted that would amend any of the GCOT or CSG-WT recommendations.

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the following set of five GCOT deliverables, without further modification:

RESOLVED FURTHER, that Staff has incorporated the above Sections and Chapters into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the following CSG-WT deliverable which is organized into two sections as follows:

  • Sections 2.1 2.2: Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, which Staff has incorporated into a new Chapter 7.0 in the above-referenced GNSO Operating Procedures; and
  • Section 2.3: Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to provide Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above to GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies for use in amending their charters, as appropriate;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the GCOT and CSG Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

20100715-1

Motion on the New gTLD Recommendation

WHEREAS:

  • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse;
  • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;
  • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string;
  • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet;
  • A Twenty-one day public comment period was held, comments were received and considered by the Council;

RESOLVED:

  • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 to send the letter.

PROPOSED LETTER:

To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,
CC: ICANN Board

The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on "String Similarity - Extended Review" that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as:

  • The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid.
  • A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

20100623-1

GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline
21 april motions to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX)
recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT);

WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first three of which have been completed as follows:

  1. Step 1: ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0), including a Cover Letter, on 30 April 2010 Council approved on 20 May 2010.
  2. Step 2: Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3;
  3. Step 3: The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set of Value Ratings for 14 Eligible Projects (Note: the IDNF project was determined by the Council to be "Ineligible");

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.

20100623-2

COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE COMMUNICATIONS and COORDINATION WORK TEAM (CCT) FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations;

WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis has been prepared;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period;

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report of the CCT, replacing the second sentence section 5.8 with "The CCT recommends that Working Group charters be drafted with careful attention to the issues and/or questions that should be considered and the goals/objectives desired to be accomplished in addition to desired timeframes.", and directs Staff to begin work on implementation.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams;

20100623-3

MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) and the CONSTITUENCY STAKEHOLDER GROUP WORK TEAM (CSG) RECOMMENDATIONS

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT), which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

WHEREAS, the GCOT has completed and submitted certain documents that it recommends be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) as follows:

WHEREAS, the CSG-WT has completed and submitted the following document that it recommends be approved for implementation within the GNSO:

  • Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and
    Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members

WHEREAS, the OSC has approved the above referenced GCOT amendments to the GOP and the CSG-WT recommendations and has forwarded these documents (via embedded links) to the GNSO Council on or before 15 June 2010;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted by the Work Teams and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post these aforementioned documents for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these documents, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

20100623-4

MOTION TO APPROVE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS ENDORSMENT PROCESS:

Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN¹s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams;

Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the "WHOIS Policy" and the "Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS" Review Teams; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the "WHOIS Policy" and "Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS" review teams.

20100623-5

MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS

WHEREAS the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes be made as transparent as possible;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness of and engagement in GNSO activities;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members represent their respective Stakeholder Groups in a manner determined by those Stakeholder Groups;

WHEREAS this representation function would be enhanced if Stakeholder Group members were able to listen in real time to Council meetings; and

WHEREAS it would be impractical to open the GNSO Council meeting teleconference facility to Stakeholder Group members;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council teleconference meetings will be audiocast (in addition to being recorded) so that members of the community can listen in real time.

20100610-1

NEW gTLD RECOMMENDATION MOTION

WHEREAS:

  • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse;
  • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;
  • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string;
  • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet;

RESOLVED:

  • A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure".
  • ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010.
  • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.

PROPOSED LETTER:

To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,
CC: ICANN Board

The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on "String Similarity - Extended Review" that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as:

  • The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but not result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid.
  • A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

20100520-1

Motion - Prioritization Project List

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline 21 april motions to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT);

WHEREAS, the first step in the GNSO Work Prioritization timeline called for the ICANN Policy Staff to produce, on or before 30 April 2010, a recommendation of those GNSO projects that should be considered Eligible and Ineligible for the Work Prioritization effort;

WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0), including a Cover Letter,on 30 April 2010;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts and approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0) for use in all remaining steps of the Work Prioritization timeline that, upon completion, is intended to culminate in a set of approved GNSO project ratings and priorities at the ICANN meeting in Brussels.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

20100520-2

Motion to approve the GNSO Council's expectations about size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' and to approve the GNSO Council's response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'

Whereas:

  • On 22 April 2010, the chair of the GAC was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'
  • On 26 April 2010, ICANN Staff was requesting comment from the GNSO regarding the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'

The GNSO council:

  • Asks that both Review Teams shall be staffed with 4 GNSO representatives
  • Asks the GNSO council chair to forward his comments made in response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy'to the relevant ICANN body.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

20100520-3

Motion to adopt a Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG)

Whereas, on 1 April 2010, the GNSO Council resolved to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SOâs) and Advisory Committee (ACâs) to fulfill an ICANN Board request to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs;

Whereas, the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has since been launched and has drafted a Charter for the WG activities.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG);

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Liaison for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG), Rafik Dammak, shall inform the WG of this resolution within 48 hours of its adoption.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

20100421-1

Motion to Accept the GNSO Improvements OSC CCT Report and initiate comment period

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT), which was chartered to focus on one of the five operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

WHEREAS, the CCT completed its deliberations and forwarded its Consolidated Final Recommendations to the OSC on 9 April 2010;

WHEREAS, the OSC approved the CCT's Consolidated Final Recommendations
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf

and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on or before 12 April 2010;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the CCT as its final set of recommendations and directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the CCT's report.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

20100421-2 GNSO Work Prioritisation Process Resolution

WHEREAS, the ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a 2008-2009 Work Team Attendance Study which confirmed that volunteer participation has been suffering and languishing.

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, considering the advice of Staff, organized a Drafting Team at the Seoul ICANN meeting for the purpose of developing a GNSO Work Prioritization model and procedure;

WHEREAS, the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) has completed its deliberations and developed a written procedure recommended for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures as Chapter 6 plus an accompanying ANNEX http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf

WHEREAS, the WPM-DT has developed a timeline of activities (see below) that it recommends be adopted in order that the first Work Prioritization effort can be completed by the ICANN Brussels meeting;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts the deliverable of the WPM-DT, thanks the team for its efforts, and approves the use of Chapter 6 and the ANNEX http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf for conducting its first Work Prioritization effort.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on this amendment to the GNSO Operating Procedures and reserves the right to modify the procedures described in Chapter 6 and the ANNEX http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf after the conclusion of both the public comment period and the first Work Prioritization effort.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council supports the recommended timeline (see below) for conducting the first Work Prioritization effort and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make arrangements consistent with its dates and activities.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council take action on Chapter 6 and the ANNEX
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf
with regard to the GNSO Operating Procedures as soon as possible after completion and analysis of the first Work Prioritization effort and after a second public comment period.

TIMELINE FOR FIRST WORK PRIORITIZATION EFFORT
Dates

26-30 April
ANNEX Step 1: Staff prepares its recommendations for Eligible and Non-Eligible Projects and their associated classifications

30 April

Staff distributes recommended Project Lists to GNSO Council and all relevant GNSO structures (e.g. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, ALAC).

3-19 May

Chair asks for Council approval (via email list) to adopt or modify Staff's recommendations

20 May Council Meeting

Eligible Projects List approved by Council

21 May - 7 June

ANNEX Step 2: Individual Councilor ratings completed (extended to 17 calendar days) and delivered to Staff

8-15 June

ANNEX Step 2.3: Staff consolidates ratings and analyzes for commonality; prepares for Step 3.

19 June (or 20 June)

ANNEX Step 3: Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings

23 June Council Meeting (Brussels)

EX Step 4: Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at http://gnso.icann.org/.

20100421-3

Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)

Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/)

and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.

On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903)

On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas

If funding becomes available, the Council will then decide which studies to fund, if any, provided that the Council's recommendation of this amount is not to be taken as an indication that the Council will recommend any or particular studies be performed provided that the total ICANN budget for FY11 is not increased as a result of funding WHOIS studies

Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least $ 400,000 be set aside in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011.

Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.

The motion passes unanimously by roll call vote

20100401-1

Motion to create a Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support

Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;

Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies,

Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs, and the goal of not creating further delays to the new gTLD process;

Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group;

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation;

Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed;

Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community;

Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's;

Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's.

Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting.

20100310-1

Motion to Approve Vertical Integration (VI) Charter:

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

Whereas, the GNSO Council created a drafting team for the purposes of drafting a charter to fulfill the requirements of the PDP; and,

Whereas the drafting team completed its work and presented its charter proposal to the GNSO Council on Friday Feb 26, 2010.

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed charter to guide the working group in its PDP activities;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council approves the following charter:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-10mar10-en.pdf

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council appoints Stephane van Gelder to be the GNSO Council Liaison to the Vertical Integration Working group (VI WG).

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to perform the work of the VI WG, and that the VI WG shall initiate its activities within 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Resolved further, that the WG is directed to develop a version of objective 5 and to recommend it to the Council within three weeks for either (a) Council approval of the WG-recommended Objective 5 or (b)
Council vote on which version of Objective 5 (as reflected in the draft Charter of March 10, 2010) should apply.

Resolution passed unanimously by voice vote of all Council members present.
Rosemary Sinclair, Adrian Kinderis and Terry Davis absent.

20100310-2

Resolution for the extension of the Operating Steering Committee (OSC)- Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)

Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan) http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf;

Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements;

Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council;

Whereas the Council extended the terms of those committees until the Nairobi ICANN meeting ("the end of ICANN's first general meeting in 2010") to allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - 24 sept motions);

Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work;

RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the end of the 2010 ICANN annual meeting. The Council directs each work team chair by the end of the Brussels ICANN meeting to identify the specific targets and benchmarks for completing their work and to be prepared to conclude their work as soon as possible but not later than the 2010 ICANN annual meeting. The specific expectations, targets and benchmarks for each team should be shared with the appropriate Steering Committee Chair and the Council by 15 April 2010.

Resolution passed unanimously by voice vote of all Council members present.
Rosemary Sinclair, Adrian Kinderis and Terry Davis absent.

20100310-3

Board Seat #13 Election Resolution

Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws specify that the GNSO has the right to select two individuals to serve on the ICANN Board, commonly referred to as Board Seats 13 and 14;

Whereas, under the Bylaws, the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council selects the individual to fill Board Seat 13, and the Non-Contracted Parties House selects the individual to fill Board Seat 14;

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved the process proposed by the Contracted Party House to select a representative to fill Board Seat 13 for the 2010 election, and amended its Operating Procedures to include that process (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-28jan10-en.htm);

Whereas the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO Council has utilized that process to select Bruce Tonkin to serve as the Board member for Seat 13;

RESOLVED, The GNSO Council acknowledges the selection of Bruce Tonkin by the Contracted Parties House to fill ICANN Board Seat 13 and directs the GNSO Secretariat to make the necessary notifications to the Board and the community.

Resolution passed unanimously by roll call vote and 3 absentee ballots.

20100218-1

Motion on the Proposed Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the AoC Accountability and Transparency RT as amended 18 February 2010

WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review team for Accountability and Transparency

WHEREAS, the Accountability and Transparency review team will include members endorsed by the GNSO in its efforts;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to adopt a one-time process to provide endorsements for applicants to serve on the first Accountability and Transparency review;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the Endorsement Process described in the attached document
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-endorsement-nominees-process-proposal-10feb10-en.pdf
is hereby approved;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that each Stakeholder Group and the GNSO Council Nominating Committee appointees should immediately commence their selection processes in accordance with the Endorsement Process;

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the Accountability and Transparency review team;

RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council shall form an Evaluation Team made up of one Councilor from each SG plus one Nominating Committee Appointee in its meeting on 18 February to assess the responses and report to the Council list not later than 10 March or 14 March;

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is directed to schedule a Special Council Teleconference call on 15, 16 or 17 March at a time that maximizes Councilor participation for the purpose of finalizing GNSO endorsements;

RESOLVED FURTHER, the Affirmation of Commitments Review Drafting Team is requested to continue its work to develop a longer-term process for Council consideration in April.

The motion passed by a roll call vote.
18 Votes in favour

6 votes in favour Contracted Parties House
Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer, Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis.
Absent: Terry Davis NCA

12 votes in favour Non Contracted Parties House
Zahid Jamil, Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair, Debra Hughes, Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, and Olga Cavalli.

One abstention: Mike Rodenbaugh - reason:
"I abstained from the vote on AoC RT selections due to the gender diversity provisions, which I think are unfair and unnecessary. ICANN is open to everyone and always has been open to everyone. So I see no reason why ICANN should be promoting one group of people over any other, based solely on irrelevant personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, etc."

20100128-1

Motion to commence a Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration between registries and registrars.

Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on vertical integration between registries and registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;

Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the issue for a period of 1-2 years;

Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issues Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on vertical integration between registries and registrars; and

Whereas, the GNSO Council has decided against initiating a Task Force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;

Now therefore, be it:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and nonetheless approves the initiation of a PDP on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PDP shall evaluate which policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed under the ICANN Bylaws;

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a Working Group to fulfill the requirements of the PDP, including a review of ICANN Staff's prior work with respect to vertical integration, and develop recommendations accordingly; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than sixteen weeks from the date of this resolution.

The motion carried by a roll call vote.

Contracted Party House - Seven Votes against.
6 votes against + one Absentee ballot - Adrian Kinderis against.

Non Contracted Party House - Eleven (11) Votes in favour - two (2) votes against

11 Votes in favour:
Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC); Kristina Rosette, David Taylor (IPC); Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer (NCSG) + one absentee ballot - Olga Cavalli in favour.

2 Votes against: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP)

20100128-2

Motion to approve the GNSO Council's response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes.

Whereas:

On 26 December 2009, ICANN Staff posted for public comment a discussion draft
(http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf)

that addresses the requirements and implementation processes for the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm#affirmation)

On 7 January 2010, the GNSO Council initiated a drafting team to develop comments in response to the discussion draft

On 19 January 2010, the drafting team submitted comments for Council consideration, which can be found at:

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-council-response-to-draft-proposal-on-affirmation-reviews-requirements-implementation-processes-en.pdf

The GNSO Council:

Approves the comments

Requests the Secretariat to post the comments to the public comment forum on behalf of the Council.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote of those present.
Absent at the time of the vote:
Adrian Kinderis, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil

20100128-3

Motion to approve the Procedures for the 2010 Election of Board Seat 13.

Whereas, the term for ICANN's Board Seat 13, currently held by Bruce Tonkin, ends six months after the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting, in April 2010;

Whereas, Article X, Section 6 of the ICANN Bylawsprovide that the GNSO shall make selections to fill Seat 13 as follows:

  1. the Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 13; and
  2. the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 14.

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve the procedures described in Annex 1 for the selection of 2010 Board Seat 13;
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.pdf

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to amend the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to adopt procedures to commence the selection process for the 2010 Election of Board Seat 13;

Whereas, under the ICANN Bylaws, a twenty-one (21) day public comment period should be commenced with regard to amendments to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the procedures described in Annex 1 for the selection of 2010 Board Seat 13;
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.pdf

RESOLVED FURTHER, that Section 2 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures are amended to include a new Section 2.4 at the end hereof:

"2.4 Board Seat Elections. The process for selecting the individual to fill Board Seat 13, which term expires at the end of April, 2010, is described on Annex 1 hereto.

Except as expressly amended above, the GNSO Council Operating Procedures shall continue in full force and effect, as approved by the GNSO Council on 28 October 2009.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on this amendment to the GNSO Operating Procedures, and reserves the right to modify the election procedures described in Annex 1 after the conclusion of the public comment period.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council Operations Work Team shall be tasked with developing the procedures for the future selection of Board Seats 13 and 14 to be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Secretariat shall support the selection process for the 2010 election of Board Seat 13.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote of those present.

Absent at the time of the vote:
Adrian Kinderis, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil

20091217-1

Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09)

Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a "tool kit" of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>, p. 46.);

Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>);

Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report;

Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review;

Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;

Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting;

Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary implications;

RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations
(<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05nov09-en.pdf>)
and directs Staff to:

  1. share the recommendations with the Board;
  2. post the document on the GNSO web page at <http://gnso.icann.org/>;
  3. estimate the cost of the services;
  4. estimate what funds might be available;
  5. prioritize the list of services in cooperation with the Council;
  6. develop specifications for providing the services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting them; and
  7. notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services, specifications and procedures for requesting them.

20091217-2

Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) and as amended

Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft Application Guidebook;

Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members;

Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis;

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members present.

Council members absent:
Contracted Party House - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis
Non Contracted Party House - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong

20091217-3

Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting;

WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 December 2009;

WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues Report;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of vertical integration until January 2010.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

20091217-3

Motion to approve the Procedures for the 2010 Election of Board Seat 13.

Whereas, the term for ICANN's Board Seat 13, currently held by Bruce Tonkin, ends six months after the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting, in April 2010;

Whereas, Article X, Section 6 of the ICANN Bylawsprovide that the GNSO shall make selections to fill Seat 13 as follows:

a. the Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 13; and
b. the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 14.

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve the procedures described in Annex 1 for the selection of 2010 Board Seat 13;
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.pdf

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to amend the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to adopt procedures to commence the selection process for the 2010 Election of Board Seat 13;

Whereas, under the ICANN Bylaws, a twenty-one (21) day public comment period should be commenced with regard to amendments to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the procedures described in Annex 1 for the selection of 2010 Board Seat 13;
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-28jan10-en.pdf

RESOLVED FURTHER, that Section 2 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures are amended to include a new Section 2.4 at the end hereof:

"2.4 Board Seat Elections. The process for selecting the individual to fill Board Seat 13, which term expires at the end of April, 2010, is described on Annex 1 hereto.

Except as expressly amended above, the GNSO Council Operating Procedures shall continue in full force and effect, as approved by the GNSO Council on 28 October 2009.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on this amendment to the GNSO Operating Procedures, and reserves the right to modify the election procedures described in Annex 1 after the conclusion of the public comment period.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council Operations Work Team shall be tasked with developing the procedures for the future selection of Board Seats 13 and 14 to be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Secretariat shall support the selection process for the 2010 election of Board Seat 13.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote of those present.

Absent at the time of the vote:
Adrian Kinderis, Olga Cavalli, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil

20091123-1

Motion to Approve Clarifying Edits to GNSO Operating Procedures

Whereas the GNSO Council approved its new GNSO Operating Procedures during its 28 October 2009 meeting in Seoul;

Whereas the GNSO Council Operations Work Team Chair advised Council members in Seoul of the need to incorporate a number of clarifying edits to the procedures that were not included in the final draft of the procedures adopted by the Council;

Whereas the edits are intended to simply clarify the original procedural language recommended by the Work Team;

Whereas the Work Team has been directed by the Council to continue its work on a second phase of substantive Council procedural recommendations including a further examination of the provisions for voting abstentions;

RESOLVED, the Council accepts the clarifying edits forwarded by the Work Team
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-12nov09-en.pdf

and looks forward to the subsequent substantive procedural recommendations to be developed by the Work Team. Staff is directed to share the edited procedures with the Board and post both clean and red-lined versions of the procedures on the GNSO Web Page.

20091123-2

Motion to adopt a rotation system for Council meeting times

Whereas the GNSO Council is a body comprised of 22 members who reside in all regions of the globe.

Whereas the GNSO Council has regular teleconference meetings which require all members who are available to connect at the same time.

Whereas the geographic diversity of the Council members makes it impossible to set a teleconference time that is during normal working hours for all involved.

Whereas at its October 29, 2009 meeting, the Council discussed the issue of teleconference times.

Whereas Edmon Chung, Han Chuan Lee and Adrian Kinderis all volunteered to work on proposals for meeting times, and Stéphane Van Gelder volunteered to chair the group.

Whereas the group proposed four different time options and suggested that a rotation be introduced between the 3 most convenient time options.

Whereas further discussion within the Council made it clear that there was preference for a rotation to be introduced between options 2, 3 and 4.

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council will rotate its teleconference meeting times between UTC 11:00, UTC 15:00 and UTC 20:00, starting with the November 23, 2009 meeting scheduled at 11:00 UTC.

20091028-1

Motion to adopt updated GNSO Council Procedures

Whereas

The OSC, and its Operations Work Team, produced an updated version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure that were in line with the Board update of the ByLaws related to the structure of the GNSO, and the update was submitted to a period of Public Comment extending from 25 September 2009 until 16 October 2009, and the comments have been analyzed and discussed by the GNSO council

Resolved

The GNSO Council Operating Procedures defined in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.pdf are accepted with the following proviso:

Paragraph 4.2, dealing with the subject of counting of abstentions, is approved only as an interim solution. The GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) is requested to review this item and recommend a further solution by Nov 25, 2009

These updated Council Procedures will be in force once approved and will be forwarded to the ICANN Board of Directors for review.

20091028-2

GNSO Council Chair election

The GNSO Council is delighted to announce the election of Chuck Gomes as Chair, Olga Cavalli as interim Vice Chair of the Non Contracted Parties House and Stéphane Van Gelder as Vice Chair of the Contracted Parties House. The permanent Vice Chair of the Non Contracted Parties House will be communicated in the next few weeks.

The Council wishes to thank the outgoing Chair Avri Doria for her years of outstanding service and dedication. It is our feeling that the Council, the GNSO and the ICANN Community in general have been very fortunate to have Avri work so hard and so selflessly as Chair of the GNSO Council.

20091028-3

Motion on Selected Trademark Issues from the ICANN Board of Directors

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO Council evaluate certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009 Letter from Rod Beckstrom Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council.

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO Council's view by December 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are consistent with the GNSO Council's proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO Council's stated principles and objectives;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the following process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board:

  1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) representatives each, At-Large with one (1) representative, one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees(1) and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) with one (1) observer. Alternate members may participate in case of absence of the designated representatives;

 

  1. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver their initial position statements on November 4, and with final position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009;

 

  1. Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; and

 

  1. The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas where consensus has already been reached, and seek to develop consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be determined. (The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions that may arise), and

 

  1. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO Council on or before the GNSO council's meeting in late November, 2009.

20090924-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 3 September 2009.

20090924-2

Motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership - absentee ballots allowed

Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;"

Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based;

Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes in these assumptions might be justified;

Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left in place;

Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues Report for delivery within 45 days on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to promote competition and to protect users and registrants.

The motion passed with 11 Council votes in favour. (The threshold for the creation of an Issues Report is 25%.)

Nine Live Council votes: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Olga Cavalli(NCA) (one vote each)

Terry Davis (NCA) and Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC) - absentee ballots (one vote each)

Six Council votes against:

Live Council votes: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC) (two votes each)
Adrian Kinderis (RC) - absentee ballot (two votes each)

Four Councillors abstained (7 votes):

Live Council Abstentions: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (RyC), (two votes each) Avri Doria (NCA) (one vote)
Jordi Iparraguirre (RyC) - absentee ballot (two votes)

Three Councillors did not vote:
Carlos Souza (NCUC), Ute Decker (IPC), Tony Holmes (ISP) (one vote each)

20090924-3

Amendment to Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

In the following Motion to Approve the Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition originally submitted on 15 September and amended on 17 September, add the following to step 9 of the Plan:

"As the first substantial item on the agenda of 28 October, the new council members will discuss and vote on the updated Council Operating Procedures. Approval of the Procedures will require a majority of the voting members of each house for approval. Any amendment that results from comments submitted, will need to be voted on prior to the vote on the Procedures and will also require a majority of the voting members of each house." Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

Whereas:

  • On 27 August 2009 the ICANN Board approved Bylaws Amendments Related to GNSO Restructuring (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf) in support of the transition to a new GNSO Council to be seated during the ICANN annual general meetings in Seoul in October 2009.
  • Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 5.e of the Bylaws Amendments reads, "The three seats currently selected by the Nominating Committee shall be assigned by the Nominating Committee as follows: one voting member to the Contracted Party House, one voting member to the Non-Contracted Party House, and one non-voting member assigned to the GNSO Council at large."
    The Bylaws Amendments were approved too late in the 2009 Nominating Committee process to allow the three Nominating Committee seats to be assigned by the Nominating Committee.
  • Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 6 of the Bylaws Amendments reads, "The GNSO Council, as part of its Restructure Implementation Plan, will document: (a) how vacancies, if any, will be handled during the transition period; (b) for each Stakeholder Group, how each assigned Council seat to take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual meeting will be filled, whether through a continuation of an existing term or a new election or appointment; (c) how it plans to address staggered terms such that the new GNSO Council preserves as much continuity as reasonably possible; (d) the effect of Bylaws term limits on each Council member."
  • Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 11 of the Bylaws Amendments reads, "As soon as practical after the commencement of the ICANN meeting in October 2009, or another date the Board may designate by resolution, the GNSO Council shall, in accordance with Article X, Section 3(7) and its GNSO Operating Procedures, elect officers and give the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections."
    The GNSO Council desires to: i) Maximize continuity in the transition from the old to the new Council; ii) minimize the complexity for Stakeholder Groups in selecting Councilors; and iii) respect the rights of GNSO Stakeholder Groups to elect their Council representatives in ways that best meet their needs while complying with the ICANN Bylaws.
  • The GNSO Council Operations work team prepared draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures and the Operations Steering Committee forwarded those for Council consideration on 17 September 2009.

The charters for the GNSO Policy Process and Operations Steering Committees (PPSC and OSC) are scheduled to end at the ICANN Annual Meeting in Seoul.

The GNSO Council approves the following plan:

  1. It is recommended that all Councilors who will be seated in the 28 October public GNSO Council meeting should be selected and the GNSO Secretariat provided with their contact information not later than 30 September 2009. If that is not possible, then best efforts should be made to do so as soon as possible after 30 September to facilitate travel and lodging arrangements in Seoul.
  2. Each Stakeholder Group may determine the term dates for its respective Councilors provided those dates are compliant with the ICANN Bylaws and their respective charters[1]; any terms that are changed from the previously defined dates strictly for the purpose of seating the bicameral Council shall be considered full terms with regard to complying with Bylaws term limit requirements.
  3. Each House will elect a vice chair for the new bicameral Council:
    1. Nominations must be completed not later than 23 October 2009.
    2. Elections must be completed not later than Tuesday, 27 October 2009.
    3. Election requires a simple majority vote.
  4. The new bicameral Council will be seated in the public GNSO Council meeting on 28 October 2009, at which time the service of the previous Council will end.
  5. The GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) will be tasked with developing a timeline for use by Houses in the elections of vice chairs starting in 2010, which will be added to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures once appropriately approved after the meetings in Seoul.
  6. The nomination procedure for GNSO Council Chair will be as follows:
    1. The GNSO Secretariat will call for nominations from existing Councilors for GNSO Council Chair on 7 October 2009.
    2. The nomination period will end on 21 October 2009.
    3. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the Council not later than 23 October 2009.
  7. Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities. If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws
  8. The existing GNSO Council will approve a draft of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures (previously called the Rules of Procedure of the GNSO Council) for public comment and ICANN Staff will post them for a 21-day public comment period as soon as possible; such draft will include a revision of those areas of the existing Rules necessary for seating the bicameral Council. The Council also notes that there are several placeholder items in the current version of the recommended Operating Rules and procedures that will need to be addressed by the GNSO Council Operations work team (GCOT) after Seoul.
  9. As much in advance of the meeting as possible, the agenda for the 28 October 2009 Council meeting will be prepared by the existing Council under the leadership of Avri Doria as chair and shall include but not be limited to the following two action items:
    1. Approval of the Council Operating Procedures necessary for seating the bicameral Council;
    2. Election of chair.
  10. The Council requests that the Nominating Committee be tasked with assigning all three Nominating Committee Appointees (NCAs) to Council seats beginning after the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting. For the period starting on 28 October 2009 and continuing only through the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting, the following procedure will be used to assign NCAs to Council seats:
    1. ICANN Staff should ensure that a Statement of Interest is received from Andrei Kolesnikov and sent to the Council not later than 30 September 2009.
    2. Not later than 30 September 2009, new and existing NCAs will make best efforts to collaborate and provide their input to the GNSO Council regarding their recommendations for assigning NCA Council seats. Such input should include any seating assignments that any of the NCAs would individually be uncomfortable taking along with their reasons.
    3. Taking into consideration the input from the NCAs, if any, both GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups should attempt to reach agreement on the seating for each of the three NCAs for the first year of the new bicameral Council and communicate the results to the Council not later than 7 October 2009.
    4. If the GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups are unable to reach agreement, then the new, inexperienced NCA will take the non-voting Council seat and random selection will be used to assign the other two NCAs to Houses before the Council meeting on 8 October 2009.
    5. In the meeting scheduled for 8 October 2009, the Council will acknowledge the results of this process and confirm that it was properly conducted.
  11. The Council requests ICANN Staff support to fulfill this plan, including but not limited to scheduling and arranging for any needed teleconference calls.
  12. The charters for the GNSO Policy Process and Operations Steering Committees (PPSC and OSC) are extended until the end of ICANN's first general meeting in 2010.

GNSO COUNCIL RESTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

GNSO Councilors Term Expiration (Note 1) Disposition (Note 2) Action Needed (Note 3) Region
CSG:        
Philip Sheppard 2009* Note 4    
Mike Rodenbaugh 2010 Continues   North America
Zahid Jamil 2009 Term Ending Election  
Tony Holmes 2009* Note 4    
Tony Harris 2010 Continues   Latin America
Greg Ruth 2010 Note 7 Vacancy  
Ute Decker 2009* Note 4    
Cyril Chua 2009 Term Ending Election  
Kristina Rosette 2009 Term Ending Election  
         
RySG:        
Chuck Gomes 2010 Continues   North America
Jordi Iparraguirre 2009 Term Ending Election  
Edmon Chung 2010 Continues   AsiaPacific
         
RrSG:        
Tim Ruiz 2009 Term Ending Election  
Stéphane van Gelder 2010 Continues   Europe
Adrian Kinderis 2009 Term Ending Election  
         
NCSG (Note 5):        
William Drake 2010 Continues   North America
Mary Wong 2010 Continues   AsiaPacific
Carlos Souza 2009 Term Ending Election  
Councilor 4 -- Vacancy Appointed  
Councilor 5 -- Vacancy Appointed  
Councilor 6 -- Vacancy Appointed  
         
NCA (Note 6):        
Terry Davis 2010 Continues   North America
Avri Doria 2009* Term Ending Appointed  
Olga Cavalli 2009 Term Ending Appointed  

Notes:

  1. Those individuals who are term-limited are marked with an asterisk.
  2. This column reflects Staff-suggested dispositions only. Subject to certain structural realities (see Notes 4 and 5 below), the decisions regarding which seats and representatives continue, become vacant or are otherwise subject to re-election are completely in the hands of the individual Stakeholder Groups or Constituencies.
  3. All election/allocation results must be communicated to the GNSO Secretariat no later than 30 September 2009.
  4. Three seats from the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) are being eliminated in this new structure. The three seats indicated as possible eliminations are for illustration purposes only. That final determination of which seats are impacted by the change should be made by the CSG Executive Committee.
  5. Under the terms of the Transitional Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Charter, the NCUC leadership will make the determination regarding the upcoming NCSG seat vacancy and the Board has the responsibility to appoint the individuals to Councilor positions 4, 5 and 6.
  6. After the Board's decision on the Bylaws amendments package currently scheduled for its 27 August meeting, it is hoped that the Nominating Committee will be in a position to recommend which Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) should be assigned to each of three specific positions on the Council; one NCA serving as a voting member of the Contract Party House; one NCA serving as a voting member of the Non Contract Party House; and one NCA serving in a non-voting capacity to "preserve the independent presence on the Council."
  7. Tony Holmes advised Council on 27 August that Maggie Mansourkia would be filling Greg Ruth's seat on the Council until Seoul.

The amendment and the motion passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote:

Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (RyC), Olga Cavalli (NCA).

One abstention - Avri Doria (NCA), Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)
"I abstain because I am referred to in the motion."

20090924-4

Motion to approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Charter

Whereas:

  • There have been increasing community concerns that the current WHOIS service is deficient in a number of ways, including technical areas as
    noted in recent SSAC reports, such as accessibility and readability of WHOIS contact information in an internationalized domain name (IDN) environment.
  • On 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published a report titled SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037) located at
    http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf.
  • On 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolutionrequesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data.
  • In the 26 June resolution, the Board directs the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group to solicit input from interested constituencies
    including ccTLD operators and the ccNSO during its discussions to ensure broad community input.
  • ICANN Staff in cooperation with members of the GNSO Council and SSAC developed a draft charter for said working group as attached.
  • The GNSO Council:
  • Approves the IRD WG draft charter, and
  • Encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the IRD WG with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the
    internationalization of Registration Data.

Internationalized Data Registration WG Draft Charter 15 Sep 09.doc
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/internationalized-data-registration-wg-draft-charter-27sep09.pdf

The motion was passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote:
Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Olga Cavalli (NCA).

One abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)

20090924-5

Motion to hold a closed breakfast meeting in Seoul:

  • one hour before the regularly scheduled meeting, 08:00 - 09:00, on Sunday, 25 October 2009.
  • during which there will be no recording, transcription or remote participation
  • the declared reason for closing the meeting is to allow the GNSO Council members, incoming and outgoing, liaisons to the Council and Policy staff to know each other better and share concerns

The motion passed with 11 Votes in favour

Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each)Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Chuck Gomes (RyC) (two votes each)

Two Votes against:
Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC).

Avri Doria abstained (NCA)

20090903-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 13 August 2009

20090903-2

Fast Flux Hosting Motion
Proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tim Ruiz

Whereas:

On 30 May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and chartered a Working Group, comprised of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, in collaboration with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use fast flux hosting;

Whereas the Working Group was asked to consider ten questions, specifically:

    • Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
    • Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be harmed?
    • Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
    • Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
    • How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
    • How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
    • What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry / registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
    • What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
    • What are some of the best practices with regard to protection from fast flux?
    • Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making;

Whereas the Working Group has faithfully executed the PDP, as stated in the By-laws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 13 Aug 2009;

Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy;

Whereas the Working Group has developed and broadly supports several recommendations, and outlined possible next steps;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations and the Final Report;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

    • To extend our sincere thanks to the Working Group members, to the Chair James Bladel, to the Council Liaison Mike Rodenbaugh, and to two members of the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, for their efforts in bringing this Working Group to a successful conclusion;
    • To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
    • The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
    • To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions; and
    • To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a "best practices facilitator" within the community; and
    • To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts; and
    • To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
    • To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.

The moton passed with 21 Votes in favour (absentee ballots allowed)

Councillors who voted:

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, William Drake, Olga Cavalli, Mary Wong (one vote each)

Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)

One Abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) Avri Doria stated the following reasons for abstaining

"Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern."

Councillors absent: who did not vote

Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis (one vote each)

20090903-3

Motion on the joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting team

Proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas

    • On March 4 2009 (Resolution 20090304-2)the GNSO council committed to "drafting a registrant rights charter" in cooperation the ALAC and
    • As part of the same resolution (20090304-2) the GNSO council committed to creating a "drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable"

Resolved

    • The GNSO accepts the charter defined in
      http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/raa-drafting-team-charter-03sep09-en.pdf
      with the deliverables and milestones as set out in that charter and invites the ALAC to participate as a partner in this effort.
    • The drafting team, at its next meeting, will pick a pair of coordinators, one each from the At-Large Community and the GNSO
    • With charter amended as: Replace under Charter (B) item 3 - replace 'amendments' with 'topics.' to read "Propose next steps for considering such topics"

The motion passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote.

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, William Drake, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes, Olga Cavalli.

Two Abstentions:

Avri Doria - Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), reason for abstaining

"Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern."

Maggie Mansourkia - ISP, reason for abstaining "I have not studied or know really anything about the topic."

20090813-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 23 July 2009

20090723-1

Approval Of GNSO Council Minutes

GNSO Council minutes 28 May 2009
GNSO Council minutes 9 July 2009

20090723-2

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
(IRTP) Part B Working Group (WG)

Proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Chuck Gomes.

Whereas

On 24 June 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and, decided to create a PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; and,

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

Resolved

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz confirmed as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Part B WG.

The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such
time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

  1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
    (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
  2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
  3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
  4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
  5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
    accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

To inform its work, the WG should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance Staff to understand how elements of the
existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that are applicable to the above questions are enforced. The WG should also request compliance
Staff to review any policy recommendations it develops and provide advice on how the recommendations may best be structured to ensure clarity and enforceability.

Working Group processes:

While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the guidelines at the following link will apply to this WG:
working group process
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_june_09_motions

Milestones

WG formed, chair Council liaison staff coordinator identified = T

Initial Report: T + 170 days"

First comment period ends: T + 190 days

Preliminary Final Report: T + 220 days.

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each)

Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each)

Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC).

20090723-3

Motion for the formation of the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG):

Proposed by Edmon Chung, seconded by Chuck Gomes

WHEREAS

GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;

The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology;

Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for IDN TLDs; and,

Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a reservation for ccTLDs);

RESOLVED:

To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) based on the Draft Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-charter-21jul09.pdf

The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each)

Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each)

Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC).

20090709-1

Motion on By-Law Changes

Whereas

On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm

On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-bylaws-changes-re-gnso-27mar09.pdf

Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and

On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-restructure-08jun09.pdf

On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/by-laws-legal-12jun09.pdf

Resolved

The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO Council be amended to read as documented in:
http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean-30jun09-en.pdf

The Motion passed.

12 Votes in favour:
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries constituency) (two votes each)
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote each)

3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency).

1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency).

Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar constituency).

20090624-1

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter
Motion made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

This charter is based on the GNSO Council decision to create a PDP WG to recommend best practices and/or consensus policies regarding the issues defined in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report at:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

The full resolution of the Council on 7 May 2009:

Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);

Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR;

Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report;

Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;

Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.
The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:

  • that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;
  • that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, andrecovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced;
  • and that it should specifically consider the following questions:

Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;

Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;

Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;

Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined).

Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter.

Charter

Whereas:
The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); and

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaw;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

The Working Group initially shall:

  1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced;
  2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle;
  3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery.

The Working Group shall then consider the following questions:

  1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
  2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
  3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
  4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
  5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council.

The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy.

Working Group processes:

While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Unanimous consensus position

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree

Strong support but significant opposition

Minority viewpoint(s)

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially:

  1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
  2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
    • If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
  3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report.

    This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

The WG will have an archived mailing list.
The mailing list will be open for reading by the community.

All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.
A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt@icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/.

A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found at https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time itwas (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.
Milestones

WG formed, chair Council liaison staff coordinator identified = T

Initial Report: T + 150 - 170 days

First comment period ends: T + 170 - 200 days

Preliminary Final Report: T + 190 - 220 days.

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

Motion passed unanimously by show of hands

20090624-2

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B
Motion by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April 2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B, addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the issues outlined in issue set C, related to registrar lock status into one IRTP Part B,

The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009,

The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and

The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO

Resolved:

The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report Part B.

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

27 Votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis, Avri Doria (one vote each)

Edmon Chun, Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee votes in favour: Bill Drake, (one vote) Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes)

20090528

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes

GNSO Council minutes 16 April 2009
GNSO Council minutes 7 May 2009

20090507-1

Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) as amended:

Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);

Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR;

Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report;

Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;

Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.

The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:

  • that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;
  • that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA
    provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and that it should specifically consider the following questions:
    • Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
    • Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
    • Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
    • Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined).
    • Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter.

A roll call vote was taken.

The motion passed. 25 Votes in favour.

Cyril Chua, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

[Absentee ballots were sent to eligible Councillors.

Greg Ruth, Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes)

There were 5 absentee votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes)

Absent from voting: Greg Ruth, Tony Holmes (1 vote each)

20090507-2

Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,

and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment,

and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations,

and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community,

and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,

Resolved,

The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past.

The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared for these consultations. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this would be possible.

Motion passed by voice vote.

One 'nay vote' was heard.

Present at the time of voting:
Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Mary Wong, Terry Davis, Avri Doria, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes.

Absent at the time of voting:
Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Adrian Kinderis, Olga Cavalli.

20090416-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 19 February 2009
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 26 March 2009

20090416-2

Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP)

Proposed by: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing

  1. the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars,
  2. the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and
  3. to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars;

Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009;

Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council:

  1. Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes;
  2. Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and,
  3. Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD.

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes.

To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact.

Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar.

Footnote:
From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: 'Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of

  1. acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or
  2. lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure:
    1. The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD.
    2. ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar.

Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.'

In favour: 24 votes

Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee ballots received from
Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed.
One councilor did not vote

20090416-3

Motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address

Proposed by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

WHEREAS,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list,

Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery,

The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs,

The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report,

RESOLVED,
Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council requests the creation of an issues report on the following
issues:

  1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm).
    (Issue #2)
  2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. (Issue #7)
  3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9)
  4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied). (Issue #5)
  5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG)

(Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.)

Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion.

In favour: 24 votes.

Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee ballots received from
Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed.
One councilor did not vote

20090416-4

Motion on Travel Funding

Proposed by Stéphane van Gelder
Seconded by Philip Sheppard

Whereas:

At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies.

At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes.

That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers.

Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2009, in Sydney.

The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD.

Resolved:

That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.

Motion passed by voice vote, 2 nays.

20090304-1

WHOIS Motion
Proposed by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette

GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.

Whereas:

In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies.

This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).

On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating and considering further Whois studies.

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council would then ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study Drafting Team' is tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.

The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC.
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of the remaining studies.

Resolved:

Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible, noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements in stages.

Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html

Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to generate spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html

Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html

Study 11.
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html

Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 GAC 11) Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when compared with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and non-private registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html

Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html

GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or prevented by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.

GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.

Group E (Studies 3 20)
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html

Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from registrants/licensees. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html

Group C (GAC Studies 5 6)
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 GAC 10) Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html

Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html

GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy service users are legal persons.

GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are registered using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.

Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed, including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample size.

Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses.
Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that, based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this resolution.

Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once it has been approved.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote:

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC).

Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC).

20090304-2

Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments;

The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and

The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July 31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC) one vote each.

Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html

20090219-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 18 December 2008
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 8 January 2009

20090219-2

MOTION on Registration Abuse Policies Charter

Proposed by Kristina Rosette
Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy".

Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report.

Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse.

Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the
Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the
Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City.

CHARTER

Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses.

Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to:

'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established'

'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place ''Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'.

In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers,
registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on.

The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options.

Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council.

SSAC Participation and Collaboration

The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation.

Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations.

The working group established by this motion will work according to the process defined in working_group_process.
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process

20090129-1

Election of GNSO Council vice chair

Council approved the election of Chuck Gomes as the GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with that of the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected.

20090129-2

Motion to approve Operation Steering Committee (OSC) charter
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Olga Cavalli

Whereas:

  • The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting.
  • That Plan called for the creation of an Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to oversee efforts to enhance the GNSO's structure, constituencies, and communications.
  • The OSC was formed and held six teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 21 January 2009.
  • The OSC reviewed and modified the draft OSC Charter prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommended that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 22 Dec 08.
  • The Council discussed the charter in its 8 January 2009 meeting and two Councilors suggested edits.
  • All OSC members approved the charter with the proposed edits as found at:
    https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?operations_steering_committee_osc

Resolve:

  • The GNSO Council approves the OSC Charter and directs the OSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090129-3

Motion to approve Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Charter
Motion proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Greg Ruth

Whereas:

The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting.

That Plan called for the creation of a Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) to oversee efforts to revise and enhance the GNSO's Policy Development Process.

The PPSC was formed and held three teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 7 January 2009.

The PPSC reviewed and modified the draft PPSC Charter prepared by the 'GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommends that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 7 January 2009 and contained at the committee's wiki site at: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc

Resolve:

The GNSO Council approves the PPSC Charter and directs the PPSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090129-4

Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg

Whereas:

• On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board.

• In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders.

• The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council.

• The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic.

• The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009.

Resolve:

  • The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to:
    • Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical
    • Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations.
    • If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue.
    • Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above.
  • The Council directs the Council Chair to:
    • Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January
    • Inform the Board that the GNSO:
      • Is awaiting information from the ALAC.
      • Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At- Large community to develop a recommendation.
      • Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090108-1

The GNSO Council confirmed the election of Avri Doria, 24 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 person did not vote, as the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 for the period until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected.

20090108-2

Motion on gTLD Implementation
Proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tony Harris

Whereas:

Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015 )

The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire.

The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'.

It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages).

Resolve:

The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following:

Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6.

ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.

The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP).

As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include:
Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant
Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

20090108-3

Motion on Aniticipated GNSO and ccNSO implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Adrian Kinderis with friendly amendments from Mike Rodenbaugh and Edmon Chung

Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009,

Resolve

  1. the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and
  2. fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following:
    1. follow security and stability requirements such as those contained in gTLD Registry contracts, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards;
    2. pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.

20081218-1

GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions.

The Council confirmed the election results of the two GNSO representatives, Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions.

20081218-2

Motion on the GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report
Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post- Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08)

Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report,

Resolve:

The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 January 2009 to allow for the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below;
ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report:

- In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding
"how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP",
the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads,
"On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be
investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'."

* Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C?

* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?

* What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C?

- In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends
". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ."

* How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP?

* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?

- Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to
cancel the name earlier)."

* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not?

* Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal?

If not, why not?

-Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads,
"In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement."

* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not?

* Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement?

If not, why not?

20081218-3

Motion on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh with a friendly amendment by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated,

Resolved:

That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically:

  • 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings
    A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of
    registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse.
  • 9.2 Identify specific policy issues
    Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant.
  • 9.3 Need for further research
    As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed -
    e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required?

The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote.

20081218-4

Motion on GNSO Travel Process
Motion proposed by Philip Sheppard and seconded by Stephane Van Gelder

Whereas:
Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel.

  1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available.
  2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nominating committee delegates or GNSO chair travel.
  3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.

20081120-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 25 September 2008
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 16 October 2008

20081105-1

Motion on the extension of Public Comment Periods during ICANN meetings
Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Zahid Jamil and Kristina Rosette

Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors and many other GNSO participants.

Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant interest to many GNSO Councilors and participants.

Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many members of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with members of their Constituency and/or member organization(s).

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN meeting.

20081105-2

Motion on a GNSO Liaison to ccNSO
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Philip Sheppard and Robin Gross,

As the GNSO and ccNSO have agreed to exchange liaisons,

The GNSO approves the appointment of Olga Cavalli, a Nomcom appointee, as the GNSO Liaison to the ccNSO until the end of the 2009 annual meeting or until she leaves the council, whichever comes first.

20081105-3

Motion on the Issues report on Registration Abuse Policies
Motion proposed by Avri Doria,and seconded by Chuck Gomes

The GNSO acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report on Registrations Abuse Policies, and

Thanks Staff for the report and its timely delivery

The GNSO resolves to begin discussions of the issues report and the possible initiation of a PDP at its next regular meeting.

20081105-4

Thank You Motions

In recognition of the service to the ICANN community the following council members have provided over the years,

In recognition of the many hours of meetings and preparation for meetings,

In recognition of the many miles and hours flown to attend a week's worth of meetings three times a year,

The council expresses its gratitude to the retiring GNSO Council members:

Jon Bing - 2 years
Robin Gross - 4 years
Tom Keller - 5 years
Norbert Klein - 3 years

Thank You Motion #2 for someone who isn't leaving
Whereas every year, we thank retiring GNSO Council members for their service,

And in recognition of the fact that there is one person who rarely gets public thanks, but without whom we could not function as a Council,

The GNSO Council wishes to gratefully extend its continuing thanks to Glen de Saint Gery for being the sprit behind the GNSO and for the many many many things she does.

This thanks is extended with the hope that Glen will remain the force behind the council for many years to come.

20081016-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008

20081016-2

Motion on Amendment to the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) moved by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Avri Doria

Whereas:

  • On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;
  • The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record";
  • The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9;

Resolved:

  1. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).

Be amended to read:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

20081016-3

Motion on Geographic Regions (carried forward from 25 September) moved by Olga Cavalli, and seconded by Tim Ruiz and Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions"

In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate"

In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008

In the 4 September 2008 Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008

The Council reviewed the GNSO Comments in its meeting on 16 October 2008.

Resolve:

The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments.

The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board.

20081016-4

CccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council - GNSO Council letter to ccNSO Council chair
Avri Doria, seconded by Adrian Kinderis, moved the motion

Whereas:

The GNSO has decided in the past on its interest in exchanging a liaison with the ccNSO and has communicated this interest to the chair of the ccNSO, and Initial discussions were held in Paris during the joint meeting between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the exchange of liaisons between the GNSO council and the ccNSO council
The GNSO in earlier discussions had approved the idea in principle of exchanging liaisons, and the Chair of the ccNSO sent a formal note to the GNSO chair indicating that the ccNSO Council was interested in an exchange of observers.

Resolve:

The Chair of the GNSO send the following to the chair of the ccNSO:

Dear Chris,

On behalf of the GNSO council, I thank you for your note on behalf of the ccNSO council regarding the exchange of observers. The GNSO council reiterates its interest in cooperation on issues of mutual interest and in the ongoing exchange of information between the GNSO and the ccNSO.
The GNSO council is in agreement with an exchange of observers on the basis you proposed. Specifically: "Both the GNSO observer to the ccNSO Council and the ccNSO Observer to the GNSO Council shall not be considered a member of or entitled to vote on the Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the Councils."

The GNSO council will select a representative shortly and welcomes the participation of the representative to be selected by the ccNSO council. I will notify you and the ccNSO secretariat once the GNSO council has completed its selection process.
Best Regards

20081016-5

Motion on the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria,

Whereas:

The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO".

Such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation

The ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13 endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group

The ICANN board in its meeting on 1 October 2008 approved resolutions 6 through 15 relating to the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Working Group and the specific topic of GNSO Council Restructuring,

Resolved:

The GNSO will develop a plan for GNSO Council restructuring implementation that is separate and distinct from the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan as directed in resolution 2008.10.01.15

The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan dated 24 September 2008 as prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan (as updated)

The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October

Kickoff meetings of the Steering Committees be held during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person.

20080925-1

Motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Registrar Agreements

Whereas:

  1. ICANN's mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission.
  2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS.
  3. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the.info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 : 3.6.5. (Registrars) acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute.
  4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSTEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN.
  5. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements, notably the Verisign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies.

The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff within 30 days with respect to the following:

  1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties' ability to take action in response to abuse.
  2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties' and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse.
  3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements.
  4. To request an opinion of ICANN Staff as to which aspects of registration abuse policies as discussed above may be within the scope of GNSO policy development.

20080904-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008

20080904-2

Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP)
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;

and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008;

and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed;

and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP

Resolved:

  1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads:
  2. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period

    Be amended to read:

    The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name.

  3. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:
  4. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).

    Be amended to read:

    A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

  5. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads:
  6. No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.

    Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

  7. That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads:
  8. A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

    Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

20080904-3

Whois Hypotheses
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross. Friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh accepted.

Whereas:

  • On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)
  • Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted
  • Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/)

ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008
On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council () The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008
(https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).
Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG Council representatives including liaisons are asked to:

  1. forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable;
  2. be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and
  3. in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies, that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates.

ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible.

20080904-4

Motion regarding GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG
Motion proposed by Olga Cavalli seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions"

In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate"

In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions

The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 August 2008

Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony Harris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC)

Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008.

20080904-5

Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo
Motion proposed by Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris

Whereas:

On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway.
Resolved:

  1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008:

    Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC Complies with ICANN policy Economy Walton, Clarke RrC Constituency 1st choice Economy

  2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008.
  3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNO budget.

20080807-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 17 July 2008

20080807-2

The GNSO Council unanimously confirmed the appointment of Paul Diaz as chair for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP working group.

20080717-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 29 May 2008.

20080717-2

Whereas

On 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part A to be referred to as IRTP PDP Jun08 and, decided to create an PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP and, has reviewed the charter found at IRTP PDP-A WG Charter

Resolved

The GSNO Council approves the charter and associated time lines and appoints Mike Rodenbaugh as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

20080625-1

Whereas,

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The PDP regarding Clarification of Reasons for Denial has reached the deliberation stage, following the issue if a Final Report dated 9 April 2008, and a drafting group was launched by the Council on 17 April 2008 to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed (numbers 5, 7, 8 and 9 in the IRTP),

The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report dated 4 June 2008, proposing new texts for denial reasons number 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for Issue Set C as per the Council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with related aspects to be covered by that PDP,

The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows:

Denial reason 8 "The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name"
Denial reason 9 "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the Registrar of Record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy"

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To consider denial reasons number 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen PDP for Issue Set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial,

To request that ICANN web staff post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to Council with a summary of the comments received, for the Council's consideration and decisions as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed texts.

20080625-2

Whereas,

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

An issues report GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" was issued on 23 May 2008,

The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and

The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO

Resolved:

The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report on Part A.

20080625-2a

Whereas:

The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaws,

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to address the three issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

That a charter will be drafted for this working in 14 days and that this charter will contain the required work items, milestones especially those related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods, and guidelines for WG procedures. This charter will be discussed and decided upon at the next GNSO council meeting following the release of the charter.

20080625-3

Whereas:

On 27 March 2008 the Council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'; develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008

On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board recommendations for future studies of WHOIS

On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report to the Council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted

There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted.

Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, it should be useful to

  1. understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested,
  2. determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful direction with regard to Whois policy, and
  3. to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative view points with regard to Whois policy.

Resolved:

To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the earlier group and/or new volunteers to:

Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council within 6 weeks.
The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing.

20080625-4

Whereas,

The PDP WG has been formed on Fast Flux, and

The Fast Flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the appointment of a council liaison, and

Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the GNSO council and the Fast Flux WG, and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to the working group

Resolved:

Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP WG on Fast Flux and Mike Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG on Fast Flux.

20080625-5

Whereas,

On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front Running to the GNSO council, and

On 8 May 2008 council created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and

On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and

Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP will affect front running,

Resolved:

The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current research efforts are completed.

20080529-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008.

20080529-2

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting:

In this context, the term "fast flux" refers to rapid and repeated changes to A and/or NS resource records in a DNS zone, which have the effect of rapidly changing the location (IP address) to which the domain name of an Internet host (A) or name server (NS) resolves.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

Charter

The Working Group initially shall consider the following questions:

Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?

Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?

Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?

How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?

What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?

What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?

What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?

Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.

The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for council deliberation

Working Group Processes:

While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
Strong support but significant opposition
Minority viewpoint

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :

Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the Council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the Council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The Council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO Council every 6 months for renewal.

Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)

With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated

Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released.

20080508-1

The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 27 March 2008 and 17 April 2008.

20080508-2

The GNSO Council resolved to create a drafting team to look at questions such as:

  • How is the problem defined?
  • How prevalent is the problem?
  • Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
  • Are there rules within the RAA that can be used?

The goal is to bring a recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues Report or more extensive research effort and to define the terms of the report.

This team should bring its report in time for deliberations in Paris by 7 June 2008 or sooner if possible.

Team is open to constituency members. Liaisons are invited to participate.

20080508-3

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal
activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to
reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.

Version Français

Versión Español

Русский

العربية

20080508-4

Whereas:
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

An IRTP working group examined possible areas for improving the existing policy and delivered its outcome in August 2007 in a report posted at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf and this report provided a list of potential issues to address for improvement of the transfer policy,

In September 2007 a working group was tasked by the GNSO Council to assign priorities to the remaining issues in the report (i.e., those not addressed in the PDP underway regarding four reasons for denial of a registrar transfer) resulting in the prioritized issue list contained in that group's report at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf,

In its meeting on 17 January 2008 the GNSO Council requested a small group of volunteers arrange the prioritized issue list into suggested PDPs,

The small group delivered its recommended PDPs on19 March 2008 in its report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf,

Resolve that five PDPs be initiated in the order suggested by the small group and shown here:

PDP ID

PDP Category Name Policy Issue #'s

A

New IRTP Issues

1, 3, 12

B

Undoing Registrar Transfers

2, 7, 9

C

IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements

5, 6, 15*, 18

D

IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements

4, 8, 16, 19

E

Penalties for IRTP Violations

10

* First part of issue only

Resolve that the recommendations of the small group be approved to not initiate PDPs at this time for issues 11, 13, 14, the second part of 15, and 17.

Resolve that the Council asks the staff to produce an Issues report of the Items listed under A - New IRTP Issues.

Resolve Council will review the progress of these PDPs every 60 days with the goal of moving the process along as quickly as possible.

20080417-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 March 2008

20080417-2

The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers.

Drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.

20080417-3

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

  1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
    1. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
    2. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
    3. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
  2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
    1. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
      1. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
      2. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
    2. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

20080327-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 31 January 2008

20080327-2

The GNSO Council resolved to confirm the election results of Rita Rodin in ICANN Board seat number 14.

20080327-3

Whereas:

On 31 October 2007 the Council passed a motion to ". . . initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council" (resolution 20071031-3)

On 6 December 2007 the Council initiated the formation of a group of volunteers to develop a proposed "format to solicit what studies should be undertaken"

On 20 December 2007 the Council reviewed and discussed the WHOIS template developed by the group and approved it with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data

From 8 January through 15 February 2008 a public comment period was held soliciting suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted

A report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and dated 25 February 2008 summarized the study suggestions and comments received during the public comment period

  1. Review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'
  2. Develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council
  3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008.

20080327-4

Whereas
Council members are from time to time disenfranchised from voting by the current ICANN by-laws, Council requests the Board to adopt the following change to the bylaws drafted by the ICANN general council's office to permit absentee voting in certain specific circumstances.

Add to: ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE X: Section 3. 8

c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours after the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days.

20080306-1

Amendment on the language in 1a of the included draft motion

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the
AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted
during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

20080306-2

Amendment which removed the original #2 from the draft motion

The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an "ICANN adopted specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars" in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

20080306-3

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

  1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
    update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses.
  2. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

  3. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
    submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.
  4. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
    Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.
  5. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope
    that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008.

20080306-4

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

  1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator").
    Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
    1. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that
      exceed (i) 10% of that registrars net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or
      (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
    2. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of
      extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
    3. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
  2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
    1. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
      1. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
      2. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
    2. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any
      ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

20080306-5

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

20080306-6

The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung to the IDNC as the GNSO response.

20080306-7

The GNSO Council resolved to extend the deadline for the submission of constituency statements on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP to Friday 14 March 2008.

20080131-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 3 January 2008

20080117-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 December 2007

20080117-2

Avri Doria was elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period, 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009.

20080103-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 31 October 2007
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2007

20080103-2

Whereas a GNSO drafting team proposed a message relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs

Whereas Chuck Gomes proposed an alternate Message to Draft 0.3 distributed by Avri relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs

Council resolved that:

Chuck Gomes will spend 2 days processing any editorial changes suggested on the Council mailing list. On 6 January 2008 a final version will be posted on the mailing list. If there are no substantive objections to the wording, the message will then be forwarded to the Board by the Chair.

20080103-3

Whereas the GNSO council remains concerned about funding the council members to attend future ICANN meetings

Resolved that the letter drafted in be sent to the CEO of ICANN and to the COO of ICANN.

20071220-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007.

20071206-1

The GNSO Council moved a motion to approve the Nominating Committee job description as agreed upon by the Council and set forth in the document.

20071206-2

The GNSO Council submits a formal request to the ICANN Board for increased GNSO participation on the IDNC working group as stated in the charter that was approved by the ICANN Board.

20071206- 3

The GNSO Council approves two candidates to join the IDNC working group, namely, Edmon Chung (gTLD Registry constituency) and Charles Sha'ban (Intellectual Property constituency) with alternates Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee appointee) and Cary Karp (gTLD Registry constituency).

20071120-1

Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;"
and

Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft Intergovernmental (IGO) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue;
and

Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is drafting and expects to distribute not later than 28 November a revised proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 December 2007 meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process.

20071120-2

Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers has been released and discussed

The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by the Staff.

20071031- 4

Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.

Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.

Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.

Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.

It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours.

20071031-3

WHEREAS;

  1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group Final Report
    and;
  2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community,
    and;
  3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group,
    and;
  4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;
  5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;
  6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.

THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council;

  1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;
  2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors, and;
  3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions:
    1. Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements
    2. staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;
    3. the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and
    4. staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .
  4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.

20071031-2

Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:

  1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution.
  2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this
    resolution.
  3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.

20071031-1

Whereas the Issues Report on Domain Tasting has been released and discussed
and
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting,

the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,

The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names
registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.

20071011-3

The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles.

20071011-2

The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles

20071011-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007

20070920-1

i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and;

ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration,

Be it resolved that;

i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and;

i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council
i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory.

ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report.

20070906-3

Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work,

Therefore:

The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report.

Further, the GNSO council:

a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group.

b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy.

c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2,
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4.

d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far.
See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf.

e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on "Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records" outlined in September, 2006.
See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006.pdf

f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows:

1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process.

2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007.
Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
Specifically

"1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:

(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue;

(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;

(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;

(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and

(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy."

**Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007

3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007

4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007.

5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007.

6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting.

7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting.

20070906-2

Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of its new list rules,

and whereas
"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists,"
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
and the GA list is one such open forum,

Resolved:
The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:

The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.

Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, the Council encourages the GA
List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in implementing the mailing list rules
(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:

The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items.

With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:

An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.

The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws.

Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies.

20070906-1

The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.

20070830-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007

20070809- 5

The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy.

20070809-4

The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the Advisory Committees.

20070809-3

The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007.

20070809-2

The GNSO Council supports by a supermajority vote the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board.

20070809-1

Approval of the
GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007

20070627-4

Motion of Thanks to Bruce Tonkin

Whereas Bruce Tonkin served as DNSO Names Council chair beginning on August 29, 2002 and continued as GNSO Council chair until 7 June 2007,

Whereas on 8 June 2007, Bruce Tonkin's second term as chair of the GNSO Council came to a close as he took his seat on the ICANN Board to which the Council elected him,

Whereas Bruce maintained neutrality as chair while still representing the Registrars Constituency,

Whereas Bruce demonstrated a calm demeanor in successfully keeping the Council on track during long deliberations on extremely divisive issues,

Whereas Bruce combined his leadership abilities, technical expertise, industry experience and relationship skills with extremely long hours of hard work to leave an imprint on the GNSO that will be missed greatly,

Whereas Bruce provided exemplary service in his role as chair of the Introduction of New gTLDs PDP Committee that has been working for the past one and one half years demonstrating a way in which the GNSO can effectively tackle a very large challenge involving many complex competing interests and many policy issues,

Whereas Bruce's accomplishments are exemplified by the respect he generated not only in the GNSO but in the ICANN community as a whole,

Therefore, the GNSO Council expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Bruce for his outstanding service to the GNSO and for his willingness to continue to serve the community as an ICANN Director.

20070627-3

The GNSO Council thanks the Staff for the Issues Report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations.

The council accepts the recommendation that a PDP not be initiated at this time, and that the staff continue as proposed in the issues report on page 16.

The council requests that the staff report back to the council within 3 months. The council will reconsider creating a PDP at that time.

20070627-2

The GNSO Council resolves:

  1. To acknowledge the Issues Report on Domain Tasting;
  2. To create a small, ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting, including but not limited to examination of questions posed on page 30 of the issues report, and to draft terms of reference for a possible GNSO policy development process in a timely way;
  3. To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP;
  4. To consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting, and to consider whether to launch a policy development process on domain tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

20070627-1

The GNSO Council voted Chuck Gomes as vice chair.

20070607-2

The GNSO Council ratified the results of the GNSO Council chair election and congratulated Avri Doria as the new GNSO Council chair.

20070607-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 24 May 2007

20070524-3

Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required.

Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.

Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.

Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
(http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/).

The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.

The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.

20070524-2

The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed.

20070524-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007

20070412-4

The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007.

Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG

Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added.

General Tasks

  1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon
  2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories:
    1. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report
    2. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
      1. Geographical and geopolitical names
      2. Controversial names
    3. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
      1. Three character names at the third level
      2. Registry specific names at the second level
      3. Other reserved names at the second level
  3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
  4. Review IDN-WG Report
  5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories
  6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated
  7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically
  8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams

Tasks regarding Recommendations

1. ICANN/IANA reserved names
a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry.
a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii. Reword recommendation for "example" at all levels for ASCII and IDN names
1. Provide examples
2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed
2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language
i. Provide examples as possible
ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
3. Single two-character reserved names
a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term 'character' as it relates to non-roman scripts
b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number.
c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels
g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels
4. Tagged names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of 'in the third and fourth character positions' to 'in both the third and fourth character positions'
ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level
iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms 'ASCII compatible encoding' and 'Unicode display form'
iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide
v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
5. NIC, Whois and www
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
6. Geographical geopolitical names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names
b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names
c. Consult with the GAC as possible
d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty
e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only
f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names
i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7. Third level names
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report
b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9. Other names at the second level
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
10. Controversial names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names
b. Consult with the GAC as possible
c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names
g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary

Schedule

  1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April
  2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May

20070412-3

The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.

20070412-2

Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.
see revised charter as approved
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf]

20070412-1

The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast.

20070328-2

The GNSO Council resolves:

  1. To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work
  2. To create a working group of affected stakeholders:
    • including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants,
    • whose work is to be completed within 120 days
    • that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely:
      1. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled.
      2. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois,
      3. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name.

20070328-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007

20070315-4

The Council endorsed the observer rules for working groups.

"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."

To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.

Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group.

20070315-3

The Council extended the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.

20070315-2

The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the working group on "Protecting the rights of others
Background

There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry operators.

The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that Registered Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name, nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is intended for resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name.

In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to registrants and third parties affected by registration, and effectiveness.

As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some discussion about what additional protections beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names.

Purpose:

The purpose of the working group is to:

  1. Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The working group should establish definitions of terms used in this document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document, and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal contexts.
  2. Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants. The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.

Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan

I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms

A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)

B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms are designed to solve and new issues that may have developed

C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Submission process and costs of submission

4. Review of applications

5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism

D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Review of applications

4. Allocation

E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between preventing the dispute and resolving the dispute

1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues identified in I.B.

2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive

3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate

4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues identified in I.B.

F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness

1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any evaluation in light of issues identified in I.B.

2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period

3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.

4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues identified in I.B.

G. Impact on registries and registrars

1. Resource allocation

a) Development of rights protection mechanism

b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism

2. Other considerations

H. Impact on other affect parties

II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.

A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances

B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances

1. Submission

2. Review

3. Challenge

C. Level of Satisfaction

1. Prior Rights Owners

2. Registrars

3. Registries

4. Other Categories

III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms

A. Feasibility

Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner and holders of other rights

B. Implementation Considerations

IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms

A. Alternatives

B. Evaluation

Suggested Working Group Membership

The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.

  • Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
  • INTA Internet Committee member
  • Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
  • Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
  • Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
  • Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
  • Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
  • Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity theft)
  • IPC designee
  • NCUC designee
  • ISP designee
  • BC designee
  • WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing rights protection mechanisms)

1. Voting:

In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership

The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.

Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline

The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:
1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

Timeline:

The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007

20070315-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 1 February 2007

20070201-4

Council thanked Marilyn Cade, from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency whose term expired, for her outstanding service on the Council.

20070201-3

Council endorses the proposed election procedure and timelines for the ICANN Board seat # 13.
Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council:
3 weeks for Nominations:
Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007

Two weeks to verify and interview candidates
Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007

Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007

Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April

Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April

Announce results 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed.

Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results:
Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007.

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws
From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI

3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region.
[Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin]

Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates
All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member.

Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm

Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS

ICANN Directors shall be:
Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making;

Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN;

Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section;

Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet;

Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and

Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.

Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

  1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies.
  2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process.
  3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8.

Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION
In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet.

Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates

Accepting Nominations:
The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance.
The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list.

B. VOTING PROCEDURE
The voting will be "convention style" voting. This consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council.
(see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm)
(There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.)

C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE ROUNDS OF CONVENTION STYLE VOTING
Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007

Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April

Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April

D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:

All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC),
Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote.

GNSO Council members who are candidates, will be replaced temporarily on the Council by a member chosen by the constituency affected and that person will have the right to vote.

E. COUNTING OF VOTES:
As provided in the ICANN bylaws,
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm, Article X, section 5.2.
each GNSO Council member representing either the registrars constituency or the gTLD registries constituency will be entitled to cast two votes in each round, and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote.

There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.

F. VOTING
Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot.

  1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address.
  2. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list.
  3. At the scheduled times, the Secretariat will announce the results of each round of balloting by sending a message to the <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list. These announcements will include:
    1. The number of votes received by each candidate;
    2. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and
    3. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted.
      Item 3(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted.
  4. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.

G. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING
The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period.
The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round.

H. DISCUSSION MAILING LIST DURING ELECTIONS

1. In accordance with a decision as noted in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-captioning.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html
Public archiving of the GNSO Council list will not be stopped.
A separate archive and mailing list will be created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will (a) exclude those Council members who are candidates; but include (b) any liaisons from the ALAC or GAC to the GNSO Council; and (c) the GNSO Secretariat.
The list recipients and archiving will be concluded at the end of the process.

This list name is elections-gnso@xxxxxxxxx and archives will be posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/elections-gnso/ following the conclusion of the election.

2. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain
advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process.

The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work.

Please note that the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel will not be recipients of the special election mailing list during this period, so they should be copied on any particular message that you wish to bring to their attention.

20070201-2

The Council approved the formation of the Working Group on Mechanisms to Protect Rights of Others, with a Statement of Work that will be revised to incorporate changes as indicated:

a. Document and evaluate practices that are currently in existence or have previously been used in the introduction of new gTLDs for protecting rights.
b. Identify the problems that the procedures are intended to solve
c. Establish definitions of terms used in the working group to ensure all members have a common understanding
d. Make recommendations to the Council regarding ways to protect the rights of others when new gTLDs are introduced
e. Add text from the Reserved Names working group (RN-WG) Statement of Work suggested by Chuck Gomes to bring this working group in line with regard to the formation, voting and membership:

Formation of the Working Group.
The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group.

1. Voting:

In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership

The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group.

Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline

The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:

  1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25
  2. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
  3. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

20070201-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 18 January 2007

20070118-3

Chuck Gomes selected as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names.

20070118-2

The GNSO Council approved the Statement of Work for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin

I. Formation of the Working Group
The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group.

1. Voting:
In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership
The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.

Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline
The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:

  1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25
  2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings
  3. Respond to any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings.

As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council.

II. Purpose of the Working Group

The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs.

The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to the Council regarding relevant recommendations.

III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach

A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following:

  1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section
  2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.)
  3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section
  4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete.
  5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures
  6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary

B. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group:

  1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider breaking the broad topic into smaller parts
  2. Estimate the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.)
  3. Prioritize the sub-elements according to these two factors:
    1. Estimated level of complexity (less complex to higher)
    2. Importance/relevance to complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs
    3. Other {to be developed}
  4. Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/launch development of recommendations
  5. Identify the remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and resources permit, versus sequential work.
  6. Prepare and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the Council
  7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon conclusion of work.

Regular progress reports should be provided for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled meetings of those groups and the Council.

IV. Example of Topics for Reserved Names

This section provides an example of a work plan outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs.

  1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved names at the top level and review and examine those roles and purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in IDNs
  2. Identify and develop proposals to address any policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved names at the top and second level
  3. Determine:
    1. The various roles that reserved names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories of names, including whether trademark names and country/geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved status; etc.
    2. Whether existing reserved names at the second level should automatically be included at the first level or
    3. Whether there is different treatment proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level
    4. Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary
    5. Whether there should be a procedure by which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before adding them to registry agreements
  4. Discuss and review processes by which names could be put into reserved status at the top level
  5. Discuss and propose processes by which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique treatments in allocation for names that are reserved
  6. Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and allocated at the second level from the existing categories, including second level reservations in single character[1] and two character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns
  7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second level when they are awarded?)

Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into account:

Background:

1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved Names (Annex 6 and other examples) http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm

2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc./rfc2141.txt
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt

3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided

Relevant Initiatives:

(1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new
gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05.
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/

(2) PDP 06
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/

(3) IDN Working Group
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm

Attachment 1:

Additional considerations:

For a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must Meet the following criteria:

(A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;

(B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;

(C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates;

(D) Will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or

(E) Implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.

20070118-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2006

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 21 December 2006

20061221-1

Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007.

20061206-2

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 16 November 2006

20061206-1

Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the current election period.

20061116-5

The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board.

20061116-4

Procedural motion to vote on whether to vote on the Proposed

The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board.

20061116-3

GNSO IDN Working Group Charter

The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN:

  1. There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. IN particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm).
  2. There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006.
  3. The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information.
  4. The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm.
  5. The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues.
  6. External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names.

The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps:

  1. review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs
  2. review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests,
  3. review the ICANN staff issues report,
  4. review the IAB document (RFC4690)
  5. liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified

Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria:

  1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;
  2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;
  3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates;
  4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or
  5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.

Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council.

ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group.

Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member

Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council.

Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco.

20061116-2

Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals.

"With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement."

20061116-01

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes

20061019-01

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes

20060928-04

The GNSO Council resolves to direct staff to begin gathering the information data, conduct the research and pull together all the back ground and historical information that would be needed for the review and then recommend changes to the PDP.

20060928-03

The GNSO Council resolves:

To request the Board to delay any decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements until the ICANN Board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meetings 2006 and to take into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time.

Item 4: Proposed bylaws amendment to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals

- update from General Counsel on action with respect to the GNSO request of 18 August 05 regarding proposed changes to ICANN bylaws to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals

20060928-02

  1. The GNSO Council resolves:
  1. To instruct the PDPFeb06 task force to continue its work, to appoint an interim chair
  2. To instruct staff to propose a work schedule in agreement with the interim chair and Task Force this week and carry it out
  3. To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to list all ICANN agreements sections on consensus policy
  4. To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so –called "picket fence" consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as necessary.

20060928-01

20060720-03

"The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating:

  1. The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended;
  2. The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator);
  3. Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and
  4. How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them.

To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps:

  1. The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain name for their customers.
  2. The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of cctld registry or cctld registrar agreements with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants.
  3. The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service.
  4. Supported by the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's, such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC, regarding the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values.

The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives."

20060720-02

"The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers.

In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:

  1. Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the current definition may also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council.
  2. The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments.
  3. The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
  4. The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.

Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report.

Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion.

20060720-01

20060628-02

Beloved member of the Internet and ICANN family, Liz Dengate Thrush, was killed last week in a tragic car accident that also took the life of three other members of her family.

Liz was a well known leader and contributor to the Internet, and many of the ICANN community knew Liz personally through her participation in ICANN's meetings, and her leadership in InternetNZ and in New Zealand.

Liz was the wife of Peter Dengate Thrush, a long standing contributor and leader in the global Internet community, and in the New Zealand Internet community, and an ICANN board member.

The GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO, sends heartfelt condolences to Peter Dengate Thrush, to Liz's and Peter's children, Clare, Phoebe, and Henry, to the families of Liz and Peter in their tragic loss and to Liz's many loving friends, for the tragic loss of Liz and other members of their family.

20060628-01

The GNSO Council ratifies the election results for ICANN board seat number 14, and the results of that election were, Rita Rodin, 15 votes, and Philip Sheppard, 11 votes.

20060518-04

That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report.

The purpose of the working group would be to:

(1) review the Issues Report,

(2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work,

(3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO,

(4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and

(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:

(5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs

(5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN

The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.

20060518-03

The GNSO Council appoints Avri Doria as a voting outside adviser to the WHOIS task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN bylaws. Avri is able to participate fully as a member of the task force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force.

20060518-02

The GNSO Council appoints Jordyn Buchanan as a non-voting outside adviser to the WHOIS Task force under Annex A, Section 5(a) of the ICANN force and is able to act in the role of chair if so elected by the task force.

20060518-01

20060412-01

The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use the following definition:

"The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."

as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html

20060314-01

that both the public comment period and the deadline for the submission of constituency statements for the policy development process on policies for contractual conditions for existing gTLDs - PDP-Feb06 be extended to 30 April 2006

20060302-02

That Council approves the Terms of Reference for the policy development process on GNSO policies for contractual conditions for existing gTLDs (PDP-Feb06) as drafted with the insertion of the words "and core values" in the paragraph on "Goal" namely;

"The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of ICANN's mission "and core values," that relate to the issues identified in the specific terms of reference below.

Context:

The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and contractual conditions.

During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29 June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and 29 January 2006).

As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate on a contract by contract basis.

Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies." This issues report is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html .

Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry agreement.

At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies on the proposed .com agreement.

At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the GNSO community.

Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP- Feb06] to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs.

The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a single gTLD policy.

Goal:

The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of ICANN's mission and core values, that relate to the issues identified in the specific terms of reference below.

Terms of Reference

1. Registry agreement renewal

1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements.

2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies

2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined.

2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so, what if any changes are needed.

3. Policy for price controls for registry services

3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note examples of price controls include price caps, and the same pricing for all registrars)

3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price increase when a price cap exists.

4. ICANN fees

4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees.

5. Uses of registry data

Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry.

5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to third parties.

6. Investments in development and infrastructure

6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

20060302-01

20060206-02

A procedural motion was passed by the GNSO Council to hold a GNSO Council teleconference on 16 February 2006 and to hold a physical meeting of GNSO Council committee where constituencies could send one or more representatives round about 24/25 February 2006 in Washington DC.

20060206-01

Council resolves to initiate a Policy Development Process in line with it's 17 January 2006 request for an issues report the intent of which was to address the broader policy issues raised.

20060117-02

That the Council solicit an Issues Report related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies

20060117-01

20051221-02

Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process.

Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following.

20051221-01

Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 - January 2006 to 3 December 2006.

20051202-01

"Terms of Reference for New gTLDs"

  1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?
    1. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.
  2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
    1. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.
    2. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users.
    3. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet.
  3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
    1. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names.
    2. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability.
    3. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers.
  4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains
    1. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds.
    2. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services.
    3. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services.

20051128-05

The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION

In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should:

Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service.

Create goals for the procedure which include:

Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture;

Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system;

Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and

Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise.

The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure.

20051128-04

Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed.

The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work

20051128-03

20051128-02

Bruce Tonkin was elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006).

20051128-01

Philip Sheppard chaired the GNSO Council meeting for the election process.

20051020-02

An interim GNSO Council Chair be appointed for an interim term from 18 November to 1 month after the 2005 Annual General Meeting (ie until 4 January 2006) and an election for the GNSO Council Chair be held during December 2005, for the next term to run from 4 January to 3 December 2006 (one month after the current date for the 2006 Annual General Meeting) for a period of one year.

A formal nomination period for an interim term would immediately open for one week from Thursday 20 October to Thursday 27 October 2005.

20051020-01

20050922-02

Request the staff to produce an Issues Report on the topic of new TLD s that covers the four areas:

  • whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs
  • the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs
  • the allocation method
  • the current restrictions

that will document the status quo in the four areas and in documenting that, it will identify any of the requests that ICANN has received to date.

20050922-01

20050818-05

The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a representative group of volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work with the ICANN staff to review the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as input

  1. the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,
  2. the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and
  3. the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.

The working group will be chaired by Niklas Lagergren.

20050818-04

The GNSO requests that the ICANN staff create an information area on the ICANN website for developers of software applications thatdirectly use domain names and IP addresses (e.g DNS resolvers etc). This area would contain contributions from the ICANN community on how best tosupport new TLDs, and IDNs in applications. Press releases for new TLDs should contain a direct link to this information area.

20050818-03

That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw changes.

20050818-02

To defer voting on the revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system at the present council meeting and that the council seeks legal advice on the implications that have been raised with respect to privacy.

20050818-01

20050728-01

To approve the policy set out in the final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry as a consensus policy of the GNSO Council and forward the policy to the ICANN Board for their acceptance.

20050712-02

The voting rules of the Whois task force will consist of three votes per constituency to be voted as each constituency wishes.

20050712-01

20050623-01

20050602-02

The GNSO Council accepted the Terms of Reference for the combined WHOIS task force, noted below: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html

20050602-01

20050512-03:

To form a working group with a representative group of volunteers from the GNSO to review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council at its meeting on June 2, 2005.

20050512-02

If there were no substantial comments from the consultation process within the GNSO constituencies on the revised preliminary report on the Process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry, within 14 days, it will be published for public comment, for a period of 20 days as specified in the policy development process.

20050512-01

20050406-02

The Council ratified the email vote unanimously in favour of Michael Palage being elected for a three year term, until 6 months after the annual general meeting 2007, for ICANN Board seat 14.

20050406-01

20050317-01

20050217-03

The GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131 Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account

20050217-02

  • Council agree to start the nomination period earlier
  • then conduct an e-mail vote
  • ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting

20050217-01

20050113-04

Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and registrars.

Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriatel

20050113-03

A budget of 5000 Euros for the consultative workshop project be approved and authorization granted that the amount would be taken from the remaining DNSO/GNSO funds

20050113-02

Whereas the public comment period was due to be completed on January 24. The GNSO Councilors review the comments in 7 days and if there are no significant problems, the draft response from the GNSO Council be submitted on 24 January 2005.

20050113-01